Iliad through Book 2

[Everyman]

Discussion of events through Book 2.

[Rosemary]

Everyman wrote: "Soldiers fought to gain kleos, to be remembered by the poets, to be talked about and therefore kept alive for future generations. No kleos, nobody talking about you after your death, meant total obliteration of your life and existence. "

Brought this over from the book 1 discussion.

I was thinking a great deal about this in Book 2, during those long and (to me) very boring lists of all of the Great Warriors who were part of the Achaean army, and how many ships they had each, and how many men, and etc. It struck me that this was really a core part of ancient civilization --- I read the Bible a lot, too, and this sort of thing goes on and on and ON during much of the Hebrew Bible. I speculated that this was the reason why, that repeating the names of the ancestors over and over was important because otherwise you didn't have the sense of continuity that we can have just by looking things up.

In a strange way, though, our written records have made us LESS in touch with the people who have gone before, because it's so easy not to even bother to look them up. When it was part of an oral culture like this, the living were steeped in memories of the dead.

This is the sort of thing that keeps me up late at night in fits of existential anxiety.

[Laurel]

This map might make reading the catalogue of ships more interesting to some--at least, more concrete.
http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/1...

[Everyman]

Rosemary wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Soldiers fought to gain kleos, to be remembered by the poets, to be talked about and therefore kept alive for future generations. No kleos, nobody talking about you after your deat..."

I'm glad you mentioned the Catalog of Ships. Yes, it seemed to me also very akin to the Hebrew begats going on and on and on.

Several thoughts I had.

One: the Iliad was recited by traveling Bards moving from place to place. Clearly, when they got to a town the folks gathered there wanted to hear about THEIR heroes and who from THEIR city was in the war. This may be also why, as we get further into the poem, we will see so many Greeks specifically named, some of them for a great deed of valor before dying bravely. With no hometown newspapers reporting the exploits of the hometown boy, this is how the audience would have learned about their local boy making good (seldom bad, there aren't many cowardly acts reported, since who wants to hear about the hometown boy who went bad).

Two: again, we come to the issue of the pre-literate culture. Putting it into a poem to be recited throughout Greece is the only way to keep memory of who went to war. No newspapers, books, histories of the war to tell you. If the poem doesn't include all these details, they're lost and while the residents of each town might have remembered who from their town had gone to war, the folks from Cleonae would hardly be exepcted to remember that Sthenelus was a leader of the forces from Mases. So to us (unless we're Greek scholars or really love tracking all these places on detailed maps of ancient Greece) it's all pretty meaningless, to Homer's audience it was history writ large.

I think of our own Civil War, where we only had a very small national army but the vast force was made up primarily of regiments from the various states, territories, and often from specific cities or smaller regions: Mulligan's Independent Calvary Company from Delaware, the Connecticut 11th Regiment Infantry, the Denver City Home Guard from Colorado, and on and on. We are fortunate to have all this written down, and even available on a website ( http://www.civilwararchive.com/regim.htm ), but if we had no literacy, wouldn't we need our own oral Catalog of Forces to remember those from each city or state (equivalent to the Greek city-states) who gathered together to fight on our behalf in this massive war?

[Thomas]

Rosemary wrote: "This is the sort of thing that keeps me up late at night in fits of existential anxiety."

Now that's what I call a Great Book.

[Katy]

I got the impression that some of these names would have been known through other stories. Like, that guy who was left to die of a snake bite... I think that may have been another story likely familiar to the listeners. So, they'd go, "Oh, yeah... *that* guy!"

[Lily]

2.244ff

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 Thersítês.

He is the rebel against authority. He calls the situation as he sees it. (2.267ff) But he is cowed by Odysseus, who acts the enforcer for Agamemnon. He is odious to Achilles (2.252) and Odysseus (2.253), laughable to his fellow soldiers (2.309ff).

This to me is one of the more effective propaganda (morality lesson?) pieces in The Iliad. The message to the audience clearly is, don’t be a Thersítês.

The Economist, The World in 2012, has an article by Matthew Valencia, “Year of the Bounty Hunter,” outlining some of the legislation that has been enacted to protect whistleblowers, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. He comments, “…the whistleblower’s plight is decidedly un-Hollywood-like. Exposing wrongdoing at powerful companies is hugely stressful. Employers denounce those who do as snitches or cranks. It is easy to descend into paranoia or self-doubt. Mr. Markopolos still beats himself up wondering what he might have done differently to expose Mr. Madoff sooner.” He concludes, despite these changes, “…everywhere, bounty hunters will still need a thick skin and plenty of patience.” (I think fascinating is the, still rather negative in connotation, designation of “bounty hunter.”)

Now, I don’t find Thersítês to be a likeable character. But, since my first close reading of The Iliad, I have found him to be a intriguing one, who may or may not be deserving of the negative bile he seems capable of eliciting, including from the reader/listener.

(For Valencia's article, see here: http://www.economist.com/node/21537931)

[Everyman]

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 Thersítês....This to me is one of the more effective propaganda (morality lesson?) pieces in The Iliad. The message to the audience clearly is, don’t be a Thersítês."

I agree totally. He is the perfect bad example for the young.

But he doesn't intrigue me as he does you; he just disgusts me.

[Bill]

Lily,

I think it's interesting that what he says is not so different from what Achilles said, yet Odysseus considers Achilles the model of deportment and Thersites ugly in every possible way, including physically ugly.

I think the trouble with Thersites is that Odyesseus is saying "not the right time or place." But maybe not.

What I find more interesting is that Agamemnon chooses to test his warriors -- bizarre, perhaps, in this circumstance -- and almost all fail the test until Odysseus at the behest of a god whips them back into shape.

I think some things are done simply because they make an interesting story, rather like the invective between Achilles and Agamemnon. Under any circumstances, it makes an interesting story. I was reminded of the invectives swapped between Prince Hal and Falstaff in 1Henry IV.

[Thomas]

Bill wrote: "Lily,

I think it's interesting that what he says is not so different from what Achilles said, yet Odysseus considers Achilles the model of deportment and Thersites ugly in every possible way, inc..."

I was thinking the same thing - both Achilles and Thersites are "protestors." The main difference is that Achilles is the one who is actually aggrieved, and he can back his grievance with power if he chooses. Thersites is by comparison powerless, and when he attempts to attach himself to Achilles' complaint he looks ridiculous.

And why does Agamemnon feel the need to test his warriors' resolve? Is he having a crisis of confidence? Good question.

[Rosemary]

I didn't understand the test, either. How were his warriors supposed to know whether it was a real order or not? Psychic powers? Or were they all just supposed to be so manly and brave that they wanted to fight anyway? If they had, wouldn't they be doing the same thing as Thersites?

[Everyman]

Thomas wrote: "
I was thinking the same thing - both Achilles and Thersites are "protestors." "

Hmmm. I don't see Achilles as a protestor. He sees his comrades dying around him and wants to find out why and how to stop it (why doesn't Agamemnon, the commander, take this on?) When he finds out why, he presses his commander to do what's necessary to stop the slaughter.

I'm not seeing this as being a protestor. What am I missing?

[Thomas]

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "
I was thinking the same thing - both Achilles and Thersites are "protestors." "

Hmmm. I don't see Achilles as a protestor. He sees his comrades dying around him and wants to find..."

I was thinking that his protest was against Agamemnon taking his prize. Isn't this injustice the source of his anger? (I'm not sure if that's what Lily meant, but that's how I took it.)

[Everyman]

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "
Hmmm. I don't see Achilles as a protestor. ...
I was thinking that his protest was against Agamemnon taking his prize. Isn't this injustice the source of his anger? (I'm not sure if that's what Lily meant, but that's how I took it.) "

Okay, gotcha.

[Silver]

Rosemary wrote: "I didn't understand the test, either. How were his warriors supposed to know whether it was a real order or not? Psychic powers? Or were they all just supposed to be so manly and brave that they ..."

From my understanding of the test, it was not something which Agamemnon had wilfully chosen to do from his own desire, but rather he was acting upon a dream imparted to him by the gods, specifically Zeus.

He was sent a vision which in his sleep which commanded him to convince his men that they should flee. Though it is unclear what the gods purpose in this was, if the gods were in fact testing Agamemnon or if Zeus wanted the warriors, perhaps it was all done as a way to reaffirm their resolve in the war since they were starting to get antsy and displeased and starting to fight among themselves.

Or maybe it was done because Zeus was unhappy with Agamemnon's behavior and so it was done to try and put him in his place or as some form of punishment.

[Bill]

Silver,

No, that's not what the Dream said, quite the contrary. After being told to arm and fight by the Dream, he tells quite a different story.

[Bill]

Everyman,

It's very common in epic, cross-culturally. I was thinking of the Icelandic sagas also -- although there's less of it.

With regard to the effect on the audience, I'm reminded of Ewan McColl's performance of Highland Muster Roll (which I recommend -- you can get it for $0.99 on iTunes. Search for Highland Muster Roll.

But it MUST be the Ewan McColl performance, which is sung acapella. The others I think are extremely different and will miss the point I'm making.

With regard to the catalog of the ships -- and I'm the last one normally to look outside of the context of the civilization of the time for understanding anything -- but do you know Ewan McColl's performance of "The Highland Muster Roll".

If you can imagine an ideal performance of the catalog of the ships, it might have the same rousing effect.

[Silver]

Bill wrote: "Silver,

No, that's not what the Dream said, quite the contrary. After being told to arm and fight by the Dream, he tells quite a different story."

Oh yes, that is correct. I had become confused at first, because the dream itself is described as being "false" "evil" "wicked" and yet I had thought that to stay and fight was what the gods had wanted the Greeks to do, so if they want the Greeks to continue to fight, it than alluding to the dream telling them to do just that as being a deceitful dream seemed contradictory.

But upon review and rereading a few different times, it appears that the intention of the dream sent to Agamemnon was to prove to him how much Achilles was needed in the warm because Agamemnon believed he could fight without him.

But Agamemnon was concerned about his own men being discouraged and their own willingness to continue to fight, and so he reported that they should return home I supposed to gage just how readily they acquiesced to the prospect.

[Juliette]

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "
I was thinking the same thing - both Achilles and Thersites are "protestors." "

Hmmm. I don't see Achilles as a protestor. He sees his comrades dying around him

Thomas wrote: I was thinking that his protest was against Agamemnon taking his prize. Isn't this injustice the source of his anger? (I'm not sure if that's what Lily meant, but that's how I took it.)
.."

For me the difference is the intent. Think what you will of Achilles (power play or not), but I don't think his intent was to stir up trouble among the men, but a reaction to what he felt was a huge offense to his pride. Thersites seems to want to stir up trouble among the men and annoy those in power.

[Everyman]

I found the concept of Dream as a messenger from Zeus (was Dream itself a god? Not crystal clear to me, but seems clear that Dream was an independently existing entity with the ability to hear and speak) to be fascinating.

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the Greeks were divided on whether dreams came from the gods or were entirely in the brain. Plato believed the former, and that they were very valuable. Hippocrates believed the latter. At any rate, the OCD warns not to try to use Freudian concepts to understand the Greek view of dreams.

However, it does seem clear that Agamemnon was satisfied that the Dream came from Zeus.

Also interesting to me is that Zeus told Dream to tell Agamemnon, falsely, that Hera had gotten consensus among the gods. One wonders what Hera would think of her name and authority being used that way, and why Zeus would say that Hera, and not he, had obtained that consensus.

And why did Agamemnon believe that there could ever be consensus among the gods on anything? One would be as likely to see consensus on anything today in Congress!

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "I found the concept of Dream as a messenger from Zeus (was Dream itself a god? Not crystal clear to me, but seems clear that Dream was an independently existing entity with the ability to hear and..."

Yes, that was quite a fascinating idea, the way in which Dream did seem to act as an entity of its own. I am not certain of Dream is truly a god in its own right, but it was something separate and independent. Also I wonder if all dreams are one in the same with "Dream" or if there is a separation between the Dream which Zeus sent to Agamemnon and I guess more ordinary dreams. If such a thing as ordinary dreams acutally exist or if all dreams are messages from the gods.

Perhaps the reason why he told Agamemnon that it was Hera who had got the consensus and not he himself is becasue one of Hera's duties is as the goddess of hearth and home, and so the idea of getting the family together so to speak would be seen in the domestic sphere. As a woman and a maternal figure, she would be regaled with the duty as a sort of peace keeper to gain the consensus of others.

Or perhaps it is becasue of the fact that Hera is known to be rather contradictory to Zeus by saying that Hera had gained the consensus is also a way of making it appear that Hera was joined with Zeus in this, and in that way make the dream seem more believable.

If Zeus had said it was he himself than perhaps it would leave more room for doubt if in fact he had truly gained the consensus of the gods or not.

[Bill]

Silver wrote: "Bill wrote: "Silver,

No, that's not what the Dream said, quite the contrary. After being told to arm and fight by the Dream, he tells quite a different story."

Oh yes, that is correct. I had ..."

Silver, be careful. The dream was not sent as the first step in avenging Achilles, which Zeus had agreed to do after Thetis begged him. He's clearly setting them up to fight, but we can't necessarily expect good things to emerge from it.

The Dream is not explaining that Achilles is essential. The Dream is setting up a situation, the consequences of which, we may expect, will demonstrate that.

[Bill]

Everyman, Silver,

1) The world of Greece is populated by spirits who are neither men nor gods. I can't speak to the panoply or how they developed over time -- but consider the categories of daimons (not demons ) -- or perhaps even Socrates' daimonion.

It seems to me the Greeks objectified a lot of what we call psychological phenomena. But all of these objectified beings were not necessarily gods.

2) I think the easiest explanation of the dream's coming from Hera is that Hera is on Agamemnon's side. She sends Athena to prevent Achilles from killing AGamemnon because she loves them both equally.

This goes back to the Judgment of Paris. Paris, the Trojan who has stolen Helen, picked Aphrodite -- not either Hera or Athena. This pretty much set up the sides. The difficulty is that Hera and Aphrodite are, I believe, the two most powerful goddesses and Aphrodite will not necessarily much good in a fight. She's a lover not a fighter. Of course, her boyfriend is another matter. :-)

[Silver]

Bill wrote: The Dream is not explaining that Achilles is essential. The Dream is setting up a situation, the consequences of which, we may expect, will demonstrate that. ..."

The Dream does not explicitly mention Achilles, but it does have the intention of provoking Agamemnon into railing up his troops to fight in way that is intended to have negative consequences against him. Or else it would not be considered a wicked dream to send him. It is a sincere bolstering of troops, but it is an attempt to set Agamemnon up in some way which would seem to bare some connection to the incident of Achilles, and Agamemnon's own pride. Even if it is not an actually punishment/revenge Zeus is attempting to try and prove a point.

[Everyman]

Bill wrote: "This goes back to the Judgment of Paris. Paris, the Trojan who has stolen Helen, picked Aphrodite -- not either Hera or Athena. This pretty much set up the sides."

We need to be careful here, I think. It's not clear whether Homer knew the legend of the Judgment of Paris, or whether that was a later legend to explain why the goddesses lined up as they did.

[Silver]

The thing that I wonder about is Agamemnon seemingly directly contradicting the Dream he was scent, even though he acknowledged it as being a message from Zeus, though he was not sincere in his call for his men to retreat, it did have the effect of having the war come close to being abandoned.

In the same way that Agamemnon was given a false dream by Zeus, he than choose, to give his own men false orders to retreat and thus forcing Athene to have to bid Ulysses to bring the men back to order, but in this action it seems that the original intentions of Zeus in wanting Agemeoenon to call his men to arms was mollified, being that the gods were not in fact all seeing Zeus I do not beleive had any forethought that this outcome would result in his actions.

There seems to be a lot left up in the air in the way in which everything is controlled predominantly through manipulation. Be it the gods manipulating each other, or manipulating the mortals, while the gods on the one hand are not beholden to obey each other, as well it appears that even mortals do not always do just as the gods would bid them.

Agamemnon is told to call his men to fight, and his first though is to tell them instead to do the exact opposite just to see how they would react. A move which puts the whole war effort in jeopardy. Nor does Agemeoenon seem to fear any repercussions for not reporting the dream as he was intended.

[[deleted user]]

I wondered, too, why Agamemnon told the men they were going to pack up and go back home. Homer writes some line (book not here) about how it was the regular test?? I came to view it as a dramatic piece 1) to further reveal Agamemnon's character: he not only insults and threatens Apollo's priest, but now we see him verbally advising his men the opposite of what had been instructed in the dream--from Zeus--which Agamemnon had believed--because he wanted to believe; and 2) to reveal how very low morale in the army was...the men are running to the beaches with aclarity. I suspect the Agamemnon had hoped that the men would have been all, "No! We're Greeks! We're not leaving until we take Troy!"

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "I wondered, too, why Agamemnon told the men they were going to pack up and go back home. Homer writes some line (book not here) about how it was the regular test?? I came to view it as a dramatic..."

One would think that a dream sent to you by a god, and particularly Zeus, would be something important you would want to listen to. I do not know if there is any way in which he could have known the dream was sent to trick him, what if the dream was genuine? Choosing to than do the exact opposite seems like would be a bit of a risky move.

Is this another sign of Agamemnon's arrogance? Or was his choosing to test his warriors his own way of trying to inspire them to want to keep fighting, did he think by telling them go home they would want to prove their bravery by being like Rah! We are going to stay and fight! Instead of being like ok awesome, see ya!

And if he was fully expecting them to want to stay and fight, than you would think he would really loose face by their ready willingness to abandon the war and go home.

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "I wondered, too, why Agamemnon told the men they were going to pack up and go back home. "

That's one of the things in the Iliad I have never understood. Why would Agamemnon give this test when he had just been told by Zeus to gather his forces and attack Troy and he would take the city. I've never understood his motivation.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "And if he was fully expecting them to want to stay and fight, than you would think he would really loose face by their ready willingness to abandon the war and go home.

i>

And how DIFFICULT for the men, too. To think they're going home...and then to have to return to fighting.

[Silver]

Also I wonder how this would make Agamemnon look as a leader all around? Particularly considering past events which have already disparaged his image. But now beneath his leadership his men show their readiness to want to flee and return home and Ulysses ends up having to step in and restore order to Agamemnon's own solider's. Now only does Ulysses directly contradicted the order the Agamemnon gave, but under the presumption that Agamemnon was hoping to rally his troops into wanting to stay and right, Ulysses accomplishes what he could not and his the one that inspires the men to want to fight.

Essentially Ulysses takes more effective command of Agamemnon's troupes and shows him up in leadership ability.

I would think that not only would this make him look bad in the eyes of others but rankle him a bit as well, as it seems he was already in a bad mood from prior events.

And just to clarify, I do not think that Ulysses was intentionally trying to make Agamemnon look bad, he was simply abiding by Athena's order to prevent the men from leading, I just think that shaming Agamemnon seems like a likely end result, however unintentional it may have been.

[Lily]

One of the things about Ulysses is that he is wily enough to play two sides against the center ... he (more than Achilles imho) knows how to take and use power without ticking off the boss man.

I have just been reading and discussing tonight about medieval communities and, returning to The Iliad, realize how difficult it is for me to conceptualize what it meant to live in a world like ancient Greece, where the individual had a very different relationship to community than the American milieu I know.

[[deleted user]]

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 flaring battle-cape,
under his smooth feet he fastened supple sandals,
across his shoulder slung his sliver-studded sword.
Then he seized the royal scepter of his fathers...and strode to the ships of Argives"

The tunic is soft, never worn. Does Agamemnon not do much actual fighting? Or does he have a steady supply of new linens being brought in for him on a regular basis?

He threw on his flaring battle cape...whereas Odysseus,
"he went on the run, flinging off his cape" (Fagles, 2.211)

Agamemnon's feet are soft!
His sandals are supple!
And the silver-studded sword strikes me as more ornamental than seriously functional.

I read into that that Agamemnon himself has not been engaging in much hard-core fighting.

[[deleted user]]

Not a spoiler. But long. And maybe just something that appealed to me.


(view spoiler)[
Mmm...scepters...tradition...

"Then he seized the royal scepter of his fathers--
its power can never die--and grasping it tightly..."
(Fagles 2.54-55)

My sense is that Homer has just shown us (see post 34) that Agamemnon is not a fighter. Whatever his position as leader is based on, it's not based on his fighting ability. And it's been nine long years. Homer, it seems to me, is saying that Agamemnon might not have much individually inspired power...

BUT just as Agamemnon is grasping tightly to the scepter, he's also holding tightly to the power of tradition. Maybe all those lines with men properly standing and sitting...following tradition...lends credence to this theory. Traditionally men follow the official leader...Agamemnon hopes that power never dies.

"Agamemnon took his seat and Nestor rose among them"
(Fagles 2.91). Again, the sitting down and standing up...following time-honored forms...and it's Nestor, the very voice of How Things Have Always Been Done and Should Be Done.

I found this bit interesting as well. Nestor says that coming from anyone else, the dream advice would have been called false and disregarded. BUT...Agamemnon is the leader...tradition holds that the leader makes the big decisions....so...Nestor is pretty much saying that even though it seems like a bad plan, the Argives will follow it...because they follow the leader...traditionally.

Great line in there, at least in the Fagles translation. Nestor says, regarding Agamemnon, "But look, the man who saw it [the dream]has every claim to be the best, the bravest Achaean we can field."

He doesn't say that Agamemnon IS the best... simply that he has every claim thereto... Does Nestor harbor some doubt about Agamemnon?

"Hear your royal kings"
"The men were forced to their seats, marsheled into ranks,
the shouting died away...silence."

The men are seemingly not inspired by their thoughts of the king.

"King Agamemnon
rose to his feet, raising high in hand the scepter" passed down ... Hephaestus (strength and skill),
Hermes (giant-killing Guide), Pelops (fine charioteer)...to Agamemnon...and Agamemnon's skill was listed as... ruling and lording....kinda like being famous for being famous....ruling, well, because you rule.

Line 127:
"Now, leaning his weight upon that kingly scepter,"

{Me: Yes! He's leaning heavily on tradition!)

Line 2.214-217:
"Coming face-to-face with Atrides Agamemnon,
he [Odysseus] relieved him of his father's royal scepter--its power can never die--and grasping it tightly
off he strode to the ships of Argives armed in bronze."

Odysseus, (Do I have to keep saying, "I think Homer is saying"?) I think Homer is saying, in grabbing the scepter away from Agamemnon, has grabbed the power of the leader. Note how Homer used exactly the same phrasing here in describing Odysseus with the scepter that he had earlier used in describing Agamemnon.

I LOVED the next two passages. Men should know their place. When Odysseus meets a man of rank, it's: "My friend," and he cajolles them with soft words and implies they aren't cowards, and appeals to their honor, and exhorts them to follow Agamemnon because his power comes from god.

I had to laugh out loud. When he met a common soldier, it was: "You fool!" and he
BEAT him with the scepter (remember, soldier, you are to follow orders) "Obey the commands of others" And told them how craven and worthless they were.

LOL. And tells them that Agamemnon rules because he wields the scepter...and irony...Odyysseus is holding that very scepter and hitting common soldiers over their heads as he speaks these words.

But Theristes didn't know his place.

And finally Odyysseus "cracked the scepter across his back and shoulders" (Fagles 2.309). The power of authority puts the peon back in his place. And the others laugh...the "right" order of their world seems to have been restored.

But Agamemnon has been wielding neither his scepter nor the power of a leader. (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Katy wrote: "I got the impression that some of these names would have been known through other stories. Like, that guy who was left to die of a snake bite... I think that may have been another story likely fami..."

I was thinking of the walk of nations at the beginning of the Olymipic ceremonies. Waiting to hear the name of your own country.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "Essentially Ulysses takes more effective command of Agamemnon's troupes and shows him up in leadership ability.



I agree. See post 35. I say the same thing as you do here...lol...but you've said it more succinctly.

[Silver]

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 flaring battle-cap..."

My translation also refers to the scepter as having never been stained, which suggests it has not much (if ever) been used which relates to what you state in your post below #35. He olds the scepter, the symbol of power, and yet he does not seem to actually wield it and put it into use.

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.

[Thomas]

Adelle wrote: "Agamemnon's feet are soft!
His sandals are supple!
And the silver-studded sword strikes me as more ornamental than seriously functional.

I read into that that Agamemnon himself has not been engaging in much hard-core fighting.
"

Achilles says as much in Book 1:

You never arm for war like the rest of our men,
or lay ambushes with the bravest Greeks,
our most daring. Too close to death for you.
You prefer to stay safely in the camps
and take the spoils of those who speak against you --
a robber of humiliated men.

I think Ag. is looking for reassurance that the men still respect him and will follow him despite his quarrel with Achilles, though he himself doubts this.

But the soldiers are in a difficult spot. There is a modern parallel in American soldiers leaving Iraq today. Of course they want to come home, but they want to come home victorious, with honor.

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "I think Ag. is looking for reassurance that the men still respect him and will follow him despite his quarrel with Achilles, though he himself doubts this..."

I, too, had a sense of Ag's concern about being able to carry out the dream as he was requested, and hence initiating this strange test of his men, but I hadn't linked it to doubts about his perception among the troops (and other leaders -- will/can they bring their men into line again?) following his quarrel with Achilles. I "like" this explanation; what is the text we use to support it?

[Thomas]

What need is there to test the troops' resolve unless there is a reason to doubt it? I think Ag has good reasons to doubt it. He has been called a coward by his best soldier in front of the entire army, and the details that Adelle notes above (34) bear out the truth of Achilles' accusation. I'm not sure if he is consciously aware of his shortcomings, but he is certainly aware that his character, his kleos, has been called into question. It seems to me a reasonable explanation for his behavior.

[[deleted user]]

Lily at 40 and Thomas at 42 "What need is there to test the troops' resolve unless there is a reason to doubt it? I think Ag has good reasons to doubt it. He has been called a coward by his best soldier in front of the entire ..."

Same subject. Although maybe it was standard military procedure, I wondered about Nestor's speech/advice at about Fagles 2.423.

"Range your men by tribes, even by clans, Agamemnon,
So clans fight by the side of clan, tribe by tribe,
Fight this way, if the Argives still obey you,"

Might Nestor be suggesting this --Have the men fight for their clans-- because he's not sure the men would fight directly for Agamemnon?

[Juliette]

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I wondered, too, why Agamemnon told the men they were going to pack up and go back home. "

That's one of the things in the Iliad I have never understood. Why would Agamemnon give t..."

Oh good, I was so confused when Agamemnon shared his dream and then *poof* "Everyone to your ships and go home".

It did seem later in the book to allude the fact that he was just testing the men. Maybe this is insight to why he is a great leader. Will they fight harder after coming so close to going home, or would they have fought harder if Agamemnon had rallied them up right away?

[Bill]

It's interesting, Adelle's quoting Nestor's speech, which might be construed to mean that after his yelling at the men to "cut and run" (Fagels) he eroded their confidence in him further. It only turned out well in the end because Odysseus and Athena saved the day.

If in fact the "cut and run" speech was to "test" his men, it was yet another of Agamemnon's horrible choices -- the third in a very short time: not accepting the ransom of Chryses, alienating Achilles and now sending the men home to test their resolve.

This is purely speculative, we have no evidence, we can't know what the earlier oral tradition(s) were, I don't know if there is a word of scholarship on this, but increasingly I wonder if there weren't separate traditions here, the one painting Agamemnon as a great king with all the surrounding poetry attached to it, perhaps more appropriate for other stories and which has an aesthetic value in itself, and the second of the grasping, angry king who provokes the greater rage of Achilles.

[Bill]

I'm not sure it was the "right thing to do." We never really know what Agamemnon took that tack and without Odysseus to rally the troops it would have been a disaster. I think this is a very different Agamemnon than the one we see in III and IV.

I think actual Mycenean civilization would be more Eastern. But this is iron age war lords, perhaps more like the early middle ages, and again, Finley's notion of a bronze age battle recollected in the iron age feel extremely right. Perhaps its that very combination that has made the poetry enduring.

[Bill]

As I said, I don't know that it was the "right thing to do." I have come to distrust almost anything Agamemnon says in books I & II. On the face of it, we know it was poor leadership, and I can infer no moral principle.

In Books I & II, I distrust just about everything coming from Agamemnon's mouth.

[Silver]

Bill wrote: "As I said, I don't know that it was the "right thing to do." I have come to distrust almost anything Agamemnon says in books I & II. On the face of it, we know it was poor leadership, and I can inf..."

I have to agree with this, considering Agamemnon's previous behavior in Book I, I do not know if can really put any trust in Agamemnon's since of what the "right thing" is, since his actions and behavior all seem quite questionable.

So just because Agamemnon believes it to be the right thing does not mean that by general consensus it would have been held as so. And considering that as a result of his test, Ulysses had to step in and resolve the problem and truly set things to right, it would seem that perhaps in fact it was not in fact the right thing to do, even if to Agamemnon's mind it was so.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "The message to the audience clearly is, don’t be a Thersítês."

I agree totally. He is the perfect bad example for the young."

Thersítês comes across as a despicable character. His timing is totally off-kilter. He has virtually no chance of having an impact. Yet, is he truth-telling?

Might you, Eman (or Patrice, or anyone) comment on why he is a "perfect bad example to the young" rather than a disfigured elderly naive child crying "the emperor has no clothes" amidst people who dare not hear him, let alone act on what he says?

[[deleted user]]

I saw it diffetently. My take was that Homer made Thersies a physically unattraactive man so that all would recognize that he was not good, or that he was without honor. Everyone else is "son of"...not Thersites...he has no illustrious antecedents...no fine lineage...no lineage at all.

My take was that Homer was portraying him as a troublemaker. Prior to this particular incident, he was verbally abusive regarding Achilles and Oddysseus, right? (sorry, no book). To me, it looks as though he always stirs up trouble. Maybe...maybe...this time, he's right (maybe he's not), but I think his motivation is still discontent.

And, Thersites doesn't know his proper place. Oddysseus made that remark about only one man being king...while he himself was holding the scepter and acting as king.

Mmm...perhaps, like the laughter Oddysseus was able to provoke amongst the soldiers in this scene, perhaps Homer used the scene ... The irony of Oddysseus with the scepter while admonishing against more than one leader...to provoke laughter amoung his listeners...a light moment...before the poem returns to deadly serious.... Unrelieved seriousness would "deadened" the emotions of his audience...they wouldn't be able to feel the full emotion impact of upcoming events without a little respite now and again.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "My take was that Homer made Thersies a physically unattractive man so that all would recognize that he was not good, or that he was without honor."...."

A stereotype that persists into our own age?

[Bill]

Adelle wrote, The irony of Odysseus with the scepter while admonishing against more than one leader."

I like that -- and he's leading at the behest of Athena. This is clearly an irony in the text, whether Homer understood that irony or not, I don't know. My gut tells me he didn't. But it was certainly comic relief. This is a poem that needs all the comedy it can find.

So it seems what we can infer that we both do and don't need a single leader.

We can also infer that if you're attractive, well-born and the toughest dude in the tent, or on the plain, then you have more license than someone with none of those things, even if you are saying some the same things. :-)

A long time ago, Everyman said that the Greeks reminded him of street gangs, and I think that got lost. I think it's true in a lot ways. This force is one composed of a lot of street gangs -- or perhaps one step above that.

Adelle, Lily, Patrice,

I think the ugliness is more intuitive metaphor than anything else -- this is a long time before there was a concept of a "stereotype".

If, as Lily suggests, it persists into our own so much more sophisticated and scientific age, I think it would not have been questioned by Homer's audiences.

This not a group that would have understood, Revenge of the Nerds.

Patrice wrote,

Do you think Homer was trying to show how appearance and social standing can mis-lead?

I would have to think that wasn't a thought that Homer could think. It's a terribly modern idea to make those separations. And I doubt Homer would have agreed with Thersites that they go home. Achilles never suggested that, just that Agamemnon got a lot of reward for little work and stayed away from the fighting.