Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Homer, The Iliad
>
Iliad through Book 2
date
newest »
newest »
One thing that perhaps might be obvious about the conference: I understand that the scepter was the symbol of authority (and I think the fact that Agamemnon wields a scepter which was from Zeus is I think significant), but also in a conference the scepter was held by the speaker and gave him sole license to speak, and then was passed to the next speaker who had the floor (and authority to speak) while he held it. So by handing it over to Odysseus, Agamemnon was in a real sense handing over to him temporary authority for the forces.
Everyman wrote: "One thing that perhaps might be obvious about the conference: I understand that the scepter was the symbol of authority (and I think the fact that Agamemnon wields a scepter which was from Zeus is ..."I think that is a good point. It may explain why even on the one hand it would seem like it would make Agamemnon look bad to have Odysseus take more effective control over his men, and essentially have to restore order after Agamemnon's error, Agamemnon does not take offence.
The difference between the exchange between Odysseus and Agamemnon, and Achilles and Agamemnon is the fact that in this case Agamemnon is voluntarily handing authority over to Odysseus and granting him the free will to speak his mind.
Achilles throws his scepter to the ground after promising Agamemnon that the Greeks will miss him:You have insulted me for the last time,
and I will tell you what is to come and swear
by this staff which once bore branches and leaves
until the day it left its mountain stump,
never more to grow after a bronze blade peeled its
foliage and bark. Now the kings of Achaea
hold it when they pass judgments by Zeus's laws.
1.232 (Jordan)
This is not Agamemnon's scepter, and as a symbol of power that might be important. More important might be the fact that he throws it down.
And I'm still concerned about Lily's comment. Thersites is basically making the same complaint as Achilles -- he just doesn't have the standing to do so, or the strength to defend himself. He is an ugly, irritating fellow, similar to a later person called Socrates. The authorities dealt with him in a similar manner.
Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: "One thing that perhaps might be obvious about the conference: I understand that the scepter was the symbol of authority (and I think the fact that Agamemnon wields a scepter which ..."
I have no book here...but I think that Oddysseus GRABBED the sceptre. Correct me if I am mistaken.
I have no book here...but I think that Oddysseus GRABBED the sceptre. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Adelle wrote: "I have no book here...but I think that Oddysseus GRABBED the sceptre. Correct me if I am mistaken. "In my translation it says he went to Agamemnon and took the scepter. But it is unclear really if he had taken it by forceful means or took it after it had been given. As it could be read either way.
I will have to check with some of the other translations to see how it is worded there.
Ag. gives Odysseus the scepter to help him convince the troops to stay and fight.
Here is from the Pope translation "Ulysses heard, nor uninspired obey’d:
Then meeting first Atrides, from his hand
Received the imperial sceptre of command.
Thus graced, attention and respect to gain,
He runs, he flies through all the Grecian train;
Each prince of name, or chief in arms approved,
He fired with praise, or with persuasion moved."
Which seems to more clearly suggust that indeed the sceptre was given to him.
The Greek is δέξατό, which is "received." He comes before Ag. and receives the scepter... Pope is exactly right with the verb. The rest is somewhat embellished.
Silver wrote: "Here is from the Pope translation "Ulysses heard, nor uninspired obey’d:
Then meeting first Atrides, from his hand
Received the imperial sceptre of command.
Thus graced, attention and respec..."
Thank you, my translations did not make that 'handing over' clear.
I am looking forward to finding out if Oddyseus or Agamemnon will get the blame when the inevitable fall out of this battle occurs. From what we know of Agamemnon's personality so far, I can see him saying to his surviving troops "Hey, I tried to tell you to go home, but Noooooooo Oddyseus had to go and convince you otherwise."
Perhaps this is why the "test" of sending them home in the first place so that if his dream was wrong and they lost the battle it was his way of covering his butt so that it's someone else's fault.
I tell you, although I loved the drama of this scene, and it set up a good deal of the subsequent action, and, yes, it did, for me at least, reveal how low morale was in the Achaean camp, still,
I would have thought that in "real life" all of those soldiers would have remembered that the priest back at Aulis (it's referenced in the Iliad) had foretold that the Achaeans wouldn't be successful until the 10th year. That they would have 9 years, basically, to set around campfire and reassure one another, "yes, we haven't taken Troy yet...but we will, as promised by the gods, take the city in the 10th year."
Still...a great dramatic set-up.
I would have thought that in "real life" all of those soldiers would have remembered that the priest back at Aulis (it's referenced in the Iliad) had foretold that the Achaeans wouldn't be successful until the 10th year. That they would have 9 years, basically, to set around campfire and reassure one another, "yes, we haven't taken Troy yet...but we will, as promised by the gods, take the city in the 10th year."
Still...a great dramatic set-up.
Adelle wrote: "I tell you, although I loved the drama of this scene, and it set up a good deal of the subsequent action, and, yes, it did, for me at least, reveal how low morale was in the Achaean camp, still,..."
People don't generally remember prophecies until they come true.
At 72 Juliette wrote: "I am looking forward to finding out if Oddyseus or Agamemnon will get the blame when the inevitable fall out of this battle occurs.
From what we know of Agamemnon's personality so far, I can see..."
It occurs to me that you raise a very interesting point. Granted that Oddysseus and Agamemnon were composed/written post-Iliad, is it possible that what happened to them in their stories was a result of decisions and actions they made/or took within the Iliad? I've forgotten. I'll have to read with an eye on that aspect.
From what we know of Agamemnon's personality so far, I can see..."
It occurs to me that you raise a very interesting point. Granted that Oddysseus and Agamemnon were composed/written post-Iliad, is it possible that what happened to them in their stories was a result of decisions and actions they made/or took within the Iliad? I've forgotten. I'll have to read with an eye on that aspect.
Adelle wrote, I would have thought that in "real life" all of those soldiers would have remembered that the priest back at Aulis (it's referenced in the Iliad) had foretold that the Achaeans wouldn't be successful until the 10th year. You'd think, right? You'd also think that in "real life" when they heard this, a lot of people would have gotten in their boats and headed home from Aulis. TEN YEARS? Six months, maybe.
There's a reason why Homer is not counted among the realist writers. I think dramatic effects are required and whether or not there's perfect consistency is not so important. Also I increasingly get the sense of the combination of stories from a variety of sources, with no one caring much about consistency -- or at least the level of consistency modern realist writers provide.
Patrice wrote: "Adelle wrote: "At 72 Juliette wrote: "I am looking forward to finding out if Oddyseus or Agamemnon will get the blame when the inevitable fall out of this battle occurs.
From what we know of Aga..."
Without spoilers? Maybe. So you know what happened to Agamemnon in the play Agamemnon, right? So without spelling out what happened to him, what happened to him was a result of what happened at Troy. The question is, was Agamemnon responsible, did he make the decision, for what happened there at Troy? I don't recall, so I'll have to watch for that.
And Oddysseus, you know happened to him in Oddysseus. There, too, now, I wonder if what happened to him was a result of actions Oddysseus took in the Iliad. Again, I don't remember, so I'll have to keep an eye there, too.
From what we know of Aga..."
Without spoilers? Maybe. So you know what happened to Agamemnon in the play Agamemnon, right? So without spelling out what happened to him, what happened to him was a result of what happened at Troy. The question is, was Agamemnon responsible, did he make the decision, for what happened there at Troy? I don't recall, so I'll have to watch for that.
And Oddysseus, you know happened to him in Oddysseus. There, too, now, I wonder if what happened to him was a result of actions Oddysseus took in the Iliad. Again, I don't remember, so I'll have to keep an eye there, too.
Patrice wrote: "LOL! Well that certainly contained no spoilers but I'm still lost. Maybe I'm just tired. On to Book III!"Me too, but I thought it was just the NyQuil. I guess it's best not to talk about the end of the battle just yet anyway. Book 3, here we come.
Adelle,The primary reason for Clytemnestra's hatred of Agamemnon is usually given as the sacrifice of Iphigenia before Troy. The clear reasons for the very long wanderings of Odysseus was his blinding and insulting of the Cyclops, who was Poseidon's son.
Or did you mean something else?
Bill wrote: "Adelle,
The primary reason for Clytemnestra's hatred of Agamemnon is usually given as the sacrifice of Iphigenia before Troy. The clear reasons for the very long wanderings of Odysseus was his bli..."
Well, yes, I mean somethinge else, actually. (Which I suspect are Iliad plot related.)(Maybe the Oddysseus question is Oddysey related...but I can't sure until the end of the Iliad.)
(Wasn't Clytemnestra a FABbulous character? Didn't she just come alive for you when you read Agamemnon? I read Sarte's The Flies this summer, in large part, because I had been drawn to the characters in the Aeschyus series.)
The primary reason for Clytemnestra's hatred of Agamemnon is usually given as the sacrifice of Iphigenia before Troy. The clear reasons for the very long wanderings of Odysseus was his bli..."
Well, yes, I mean somethinge else, actually. (Which I suspect are Iliad plot related.)(Maybe the Oddysseus question is Oddysey related...but I can't sure until the end of the Iliad.)
(Wasn't Clytemnestra a FABbulous character? Didn't she just come alive for you when you read Agamemnon? I read Sarte's The Flies this summer, in large part, because I had been drawn to the characters in the Aeschyus series.)
I just wanted to say that even though I'm not contributing much to these discussions, I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.Frankly, I'm just trying to follow the story, keep track of who is whom, and generally keep up with you all. Your comments are really showing me how much there is to this book. (Which, I admit, I'm reading pretty superficially. It's a lot of gore and bronze and I can't figure out just how much credit we're meant to give to the humans or how much everything they accomplish is down to the caprice of the gods.)
Katy wrote: It's a lot of gore and bronze and I can't figure out just how much credit we're meant to give to the humans or how much everything they accomplish is down to the caprice of the gods.)That is an interesting question. Hubris was a big no no for the Greeks, which was essentially the act of one boasting too much of thier own skill, ability, achievement without giving the gods thier proper due.
While Odysseus is credited as being wise and clever, frequently, he also always has Athena whispering in his ear as a guiding force.
Most of the accomplishments made is linked to aid and involvement of the gods, who can be seen as something of puppet masters, or in a way I see it like a game of chess, with the humans as the pieces on the board being manipulated and positioned as the gods play agasint each other.
The gods themselves certainly exepcted to be given thier due of the credit.
Patrice wrote: "So, apparently Priam led an army made up of many nations? "I'm not sure nations is the best term, but yes, there were a number of other cities from Anatolia (modern Turkey) who has joined with the Trojans. The Greeks, remember, had been raiding on and off around the area along with their assault on Troy (that's how they got Chriseis and Briseis in the first place), so there was presumably wider unhappiness about their predations than just among the Trojans, and a realization that if Troy fell the whole area would become open to rampaging Greek troops.
Adelle wrote: "So you know what happened to Agamemnon in the play Agamemnon, right? So without spelling out what happened to him, what happened to him was a result of what happened at Troy. "Wasn't it more a result of what happened before they got to Troy, the sacrifice he made to get fair winds? A technical point, perhaps, though. It was all tied up with the war.
Katy wrote: I can't figure out just how much credit we're meant to give to the humans or how much everything they accomplish is down to the caprice of the gods."That's an excellent question with many subtleties.
Homer is famous for (among other things) his dramatic use of similes. I noticed on this reading that most of them have to do with nature, and many with the pastoral life of the Greek.I have always viewed these as a nice step back from the, in some books, almost incessant fighting, a momentary breath of fresh air.
But last night I came across a comment which suggested that this is Homer's way of extending the poem beyond the confines of war and making it a poem about life in general and the bringing in the broader aspects of life so that it becomes a poem about the whole Greek experience in the world. I'm not fully persuaded, but I did go back and pick up a few of the similes in Book 2 to look at.
(I don't find the Johnston translation as enjoyable as Lattimore, but it's easier to cut and paste than to type in multiple lines, so I'll use Johnston; but go look at Lattimore for more beautiful renditions of these similes.)
At 2.87, for example, after the council where Agamemnon reported his dream and the chiefs head back for their troops to report:
Just as dense clouds of bees pour out in endless swarms
from hollow rocks, in clusters flying to spring flowers,
charging off in all directions, so from ships and huts
the many clans rushed out to meet, group after group.
It's a wonderful image, and one that denotes a peaceful spring morning with the bees coming out to gather pollen -- very pastoral.
We get a rich simile at 2.147 as the Greeks rush for their ships to head home:
Just like huge ocean waves on the Icarian Sea,
when East Wind and South Wind rush down together
from Father Zeus’ clouds to whip up the sea,
the whole assembly rippled, like a large grain field,
undulating under the fury of the storm,
as West Wind roars in with force, all ears of corn
ducking down under the power of the gusts—
that’s how the shouting men stampeded to their ships.
This is an image that any Greek farmer would know well.
Or, at 2.455, as Athena is helping gather the troops, we get two back-to-back similes:
Just as an all-consuming fire burns through huge forests
on a mountain top, and men far off can see its light,
so, as soldiers marched out, their glittering bronze
blazed through the sky to heaven, an amazing sight.
As many birds in flight—geese, cranes, and long-necked swans—
in an Asian meadow by the flowing river Caystrios,
fly here and there, proud of their strong wings, and call,
as they settle, the meadow resounding with the noise,
so the many groups of soldiers moved out then
from ships and huts onto Scamander’s plain.
Since the Greeks lived mostly on the plains and valleys and not on the mountain tops, the fire wouldn't be seen, I think, as a threat but as something awesome far off. And the birds wheeling and settling and gathering and reorganizing are a wonderful image for the bustle of the troops forming and reforming.
A few lines later yet more similes relating warfare to farming:
Like flies swarming around shepherds’ pens in spring,
when pails fill up with milk, so the Achaeans,
a huge long-haired host, marched out onto that plain
against the Trojans, eager to destroy them.
Just as goatherds sort out with ease the wandering beasts,
all mixed up in the pasture, so through all the army,
the leaders organized the troops for battle.
And this is followed by Homer giving us a herdsman's image to show the strong, dominant Agamemnon (far from the weak leader that was suggested by Book 1):
Among them powerful Agamemnon roamed,
eyes and head like Zeus, who loves the thunder,
waist like Ares, god of war, chest like Poseidon.
Just as in cattle herds the bull stands out above the rest,
by far the most conspicuous amid the cows,
so on that day Zeus made Agamemnon stand
pre-eminent among the troops, first of heroes.
Magnificent similes, showing us vividly the confusion of the soldiers as they rush hither and yon, the management of the troops by their leaders (goatherds!), the powerful and dominant Agamemnon. I find this way of picturing the action much more powerful and evocative than just describing men rushing about, leaders organizing them into ranks, and Agamemnon taking control. I just love to bask in these images flowing through my mind.
Everyman wrote: "It's a wonderful image, and one that denotes a peaceful spring morning with the bees coming out to gather pollen -- very pastoral...."But all with stingers, even though the "intent" is to make honey?
(I agree with loving the imagery, regardless.)
Everyman wrote: "...all ears of cornducking down under the power of the gusts—..."
What is the Greek here? I thought corn was a contribution of the New World?
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/...
Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...all ears of cornducking down under the power of the gusts—..."
What is the Greek here? I thought corn was a contribution of the New World?
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/cours..."
Good catch. The word is stachus, for which some lexicons have "ear of corn," others "ear of grain" or "crops" generally. Jordan and Lattimore both translate "grain." It appears in the New Testament, where the KJV translates "ear of corn" and NAS translates "ear of grain". I would think it refers to wheat or barley rather than corn.
Corn, outside the US, is grain. Remember the Corn Acts in English history? Also Pharaoh's fat ears of corn that ate up the skinny ears.Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...all ears of corn
ducking down under the power of the gusts—..."
What is the Greek here? I thought corn was a contribution of the New World?
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/cours..."
Laurele wrote: "Corn, outside the US, is grain. Remember the Corn Acts in English history? Also Pharaoh's fat ears of corn that ate up the skinny ears.Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...all ears of corn
ducking do..."
Well, that does throw a spanner in the works. Both of the lexicons that translate "corn" are British. That would explain it.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "So you know what happened to Agamemnon in the play Agamemnon, right? So without spelling out what happened to him, what happened to him was a result of what happened at Troy. "
Wasn..."
No...what I'm thinking of would have been the result (I'm fairly sure) of what happens towards the conclusion of the Trojan War....but I can't divulge it yet...it would be a spoiler.
Wasn..."
No...what I'm thinking of would have been the result (I'm fairly sure) of what happens towards the conclusion of the Trojan War....but I can't divulge it yet...it would be a spoiler.
Edit: of course, Laurel beat me to the Corn Laws, but at least I got Keats in. :)Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...all ears of corn
ducking down under the power of the gusts—..."
What is the Greek here? I thought corn was a contribution of the New World?."
In Europe, corn used to be, and may still, mean grain generally, of if specific most often wheat. For example, the Corn Laws of England applied to grains generally, not maize (the more specific name for what we in the States call corn).
For another example, Ruth (Ruth 2.1) was said to glean corn. Keats picked this up in his Ode to a Nightengale:
"Perhaps the selfsame song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;"
Again, grain generally.
Patrice wrote: "I'm wondering about the similies, that's a great point, how they tie you to nature. Their religion is not that far removed from nature. I think they are moving on from an animism that must have existed previously. "It's more complex than that. They still had gods of individual rivers, lake, mountains, even perhaps trees. We will meet one such god later in the Iliad, and can discuss it then.
The gods most of the legends we know about are the Olympians, which is to say the gods who live on Olympus, but there are many, many other gods. It's an issue I'm far from an expert on, though.
Everyman,Thanks for those list of similes. My Kindle Lattimore, in the PC app, lets me copy and paste. I'll just do part of what you posted:
Here's the first in Lattimore
Like the swarms of clustering bees that issue forever
in fresh bursts from the hollow in the stone, and hang like
bunched grapes as they hover beneath the flowers in springtime
fluttering in swarms together this way and that way, so the many nations of men from the ships and the shelters along the front of the deep sea beach marched in order
Lattimore, Richmond; Martin, Richard; Homer, (2011-09-19). The Iliad of Homer (p. 94). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
The bees issuing from hollows in stones in fresh bursts is a marvelous image (do Greek bees build their hives in stones?)as is the idea of their hanging (together?) like bunches of grapes.
And here's part of the last in Lattimore:
These, as the multitudinous nations of birds winged,
of geese, and of cranes, and of swans long-throated
in the Asian meadow beside the Kaÿstrian waters
this way and that way make their flights in the pride of their wings, then
settle in clashing swarms and the whole meadow echoes with them,
There is excellence in "this way and that way" rhythmical, colloquial "make their flights in the pride of their wings" -- pride here being more physical than anything but still reflecting the pride of both Achaians and Trojans.
I realize Homer is necessarily different but without Homer at least there's Lattimore.
My interest is primarily in "The Iliad" as literature, and I'm trying to understand what one translator called "War Music." Books I and III are easy enough to like and Book IX is a masterpiece and then ending. The rest of it when I read it seemed one endless series of single combats.
I'm trying to decide, if I give it a chance, whether I'm capable of being captivated by it. Because the one thing translator cannot provide is the Homeric meter.
But I'm trying.
Bill wrote: "My interest is primarily in "The Iliad" as literature, and I'm trying to understand what one translator called "War Music." Books I and III are easy enough to like and Book IX is a masterpiece and then ending. The rest of it when I read it seemed one endless series of single combats."I just re-read Books 5 and 6 the past two nights, and I was amazed at how much there was there beyond single combats. I had, based on memory, expected to find, as you say, almost nothing but fighting. But there is so, so much more there. But no spoilers!
It will be interesting to discover them. Of course, I don't believe in the spoiler rule. I think it only reduces the ability to have intelligent discussions.
Bill wrote: "It will be interesting to discover them. Of course, I don't believe in the spoiler rule. I think it only reduces the ability to have intelligent discussions."AN OFF TOPIC RESPONSE BUT IT'S A QUESTION THAT COMES UP EVERY NOW AND THEN SO I'M WILLING TO ADDRESS FROM TIME TO TIME
For those who have read the whole work, yes, that can seem the case.
For those who are reading with the schedule, it seems unfair, to me at least, for some people to be discussing things they know nothing about and so can't participate intelligently in the discussion.
Since I want to encourage first time readers of these works to participate actively and enjoyably along with readers who already know the works well, that's the course I have chosen for this group.
For the same reason, I don't post the books ahead of the schedule. Some groups do, so that those who have read the book can go straight to the final chapter discussion and start right in on a discussion of the whole work. But I think that is discouraging to first time readers without the time to devour the book in a short time, since by the time they get to the end of the book many posters will have moved on, and the more methodical reader will have to read through a long series of posts in order to discuss intelligently with those who still remain. Again, I think that's discouraging to first time readers.
As we get close to the end, this will become less and less an issue, since every topic is cumulative and when we get to the later books the whole work to that point is before us for discussion. Meanwhile, I think there's plenty of interest within the books as they proceed to engender a good discussion, and in fact the discussion so far certainly seems to show that.
BTW, I'm not inviting a discussion of this issue. I think it's worth explaining the reasons for the policy from time to time, since it's part of the overall philosophy of the group, to bring both new and experienced readers of these classics together to to discuss and enjoy them. I've thought about it a lot, this is what I think works best, and I'm willing to explain the reasons for it, but I'm not willing to get into a discussion or argument about it.
END OF OFF TOPIC POST.
STILL OFF TOPIC
Although the policy is set--since it has been brought forward---I would like to say that I find it to be an appropriate choice. Even though I have to practice self-restraint sometimes. It DOES give the readers (i have been one) who only have the time or inclination to read the scheduled chapters a chance to participate "in a meaningful way."
Although the policy is set--since it has been brought forward---I would like to say that I find it to be an appropriate choice. Even though I have to practice self-restraint sometimes. It DOES give the readers (i have been one) who only have the time or inclination to read the scheduled chapters a chance to participate "in a meaningful way."
STILL OFF TOPICAdelle,
It appropriate if your bias is toward first time readers or readers who care about spoilers. That is Everyman's bias. But not this man's bias.
Unfortunately, it inevitably is a bias against people who want to read with a particular chapter in front of them and questions about how that chapter might relate to the whole.
That seems to me to be what generates the most interesting and useful discussions -- and that is my bias.
It's also easily solved by posting the books six months in advance so everyone has the opportunity to read the books in advance. The only one's with a problem would be people who had just discovered the group -- and then only for the next book or two.
The question is whether enough people will actually read in advance and then come back for the discussion. And that I suspect is the real issue. And that is high risk.
Bill wrote: "STILL OFF TOPICAdelle,
It appropriate if your bias is toward first time readers or readers who care about spoilers. That is Everyman's bias. But not this man's bias.
Unfortunately, it inevit..."
Bill, you should start a group for discussion of important works that people have already read. I would join it, while still being here as well.
Bill wrote: "STILL OFF TOPIC..."
Lol, nah, still wouldn't work for me. I know my limitations. I'm not smart enough to read and remember and discuss the book in it's entirety.
Also, I don't get as much out of a work that way.
Also, I don't like it.
Therefore...while I do think the current set-up is fairest to most readers...yes, it also happens to correspond with my own personal biases. There you go.
Lol, nah, still wouldn't work for me. I know my limitations. I'm not smart enough to read and remember and discuss the book in it's entirety.
Also, I don't get as much out of a work that way.
Also, I don't like it.
Therefore...while I do think the current set-up is fairest to most readers...yes, it also happens to correspond with my own personal biases. There you go.
STILL "OFF TOPIC."Thanks, Laurele.
That might be a thought, different groups, different approaches. I think what Everyman has done here is quite exceptional. I'm glad it exists. It should continue to exist.
And you're right, it's really only an issue with great books. It's seems somewhat artificial to me to talk about Hamlet as though we don't know that the last scene will have the stage littered with corpses.
I am going to lead a discussion of Eliot's "The Waste Land" on Brain Pain starting March 5th. It's only around 17 pages and I will be telling people they should read it all in advance, although after a general discussion we'll go section by section. :-) I'll see how that goes.
Bill wrote: "STILL "OFF TOPIC."Thanks, Laurele.
That might be a thought, different groups, different approaches. I think what Everyman has done here is quite exceptional. I'm glad it exists. It should contin..."
I will certainly have read "The Wasteland" more than a few times before we begin discussing it.
Patrice wrote: "It's a good decision. I have been urging my 20 year old to read the Iliad for the first time and to come on here and discuss it. If the discussion was only between people who were already familiar with the entire poem it would be too discouraging to her."This is exactly the reason I'm here. I love hearing the thoughts of first-time readers because more often than not they tend to focus on the heart of the book, something which can easily be lost in academic discussions. There is nothing wrong with an academic discussion, but I think that is something better pursued within academia than on a public discussion board. (Which reminds me that this discussion is academic in more than one sense, so I will leave it at that.)
But I hope you can convince your daughter to join us!
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "In this 2012, when “The Protester” (Tunisian street vendor…) was named as Time Magazine Person of the Year for 2011, I think it is particularly interesting to consider the figure of Th..."Lily, I'll have to agree with Everyman on this one, Thersites is a problem soldier. He is basically doing the same thing Achilles is, but with Achilles integrity. Thersites is the complainer who seeks to cause division.
He is a low-life that speaks behind the bosses back, and probably goes out of his way to appear the model soldier when Agamemnon walks through the ranks.
Achilles is the truth speaker, who sees a problem and acts to solve it in a societally acceptable manner. He speaks to Agamemnon to his face--not behind his back, and he does not continue to badger him once Agamemnon has made his decision; he withdraws and obeys, and because he can no longer support his leader, he basically resigns his commission.
Gayle wrote: "He is a low-life that speaks behind the bosses back, and probably goes out of his way to appear the model soldier when Agamemnon walks through the ranks. ."But Thersites does speak to Agamemnon face-to-face, in front of the assembled Greeks, where he is almost assured of being beaten for his outrageous speech. He seems to be insane, but I don't think what he says is untruthful. It is merely inappropriate, as he is.
Silver wrote:..."While Odysseus is credited as being wise and clever, frequently, he also always has Athena whispering in his ear as a guiding force.
Is Odysseus wise and clever because Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, is whispering in his ear, or is Athena whispering in everyone's ear, but Odysseus, always recognizes her and has chosen to listen and let her be his guiding force?
Silver wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I found intriguing in Book 2:Agamemnon wakes from the dream. Fagles 2.50.
"Atrides sat up, bolt awake,
pulled on a soft tunic, linen never worn,
and over it threw his fla..."
And the image of Agamemnon holding this unstained scepter in his fresh, new, clothes, is contrast to Ulysses later using the scepter to create "bloody wheals." His striking of the solders seems to be symbolic of his more effectively wielding the power while Agamemnon seems to simply just look the part.
This brings to my mind Saul's appointment as King in the Old Testament. The people wanted a flesh and blood leader, not a theocracy, so God gives them what they think they want--a man who looks the part, but knows nothing about justice, or leadership. Some one who is easily threatened by the Kleos of his best warrior--David.
Great catch. I had totally overlooked that. And I agree with you, it does seem significant.