Iliad through Book 5

[Everyman]

Many things happening. Diomedes has his aristeia. An aristeia is a period of a warrior’s greatest achievement, when he is seemingly invincible, when he is “in the zone” as it were. Usually a warrior only gets one aristeia; he may be a great warrior like Diomedes is normally, or Achilles, or Ajax (Aias), or an ordinary warrior given the chance to shine once in his life, but the aristeia is a special, above-and-beyond moment of glory.

Our image of Agamemnon may be changing, as we see him not standing back, but actively engaging in combat, and apparently doing well.

We get the delightful scene of Athena leading Ares away from the fighing, at least for a time, letting the humans go at it without gods fighting on either side, though this doesn’t last long; by the end of Book 5 we see gods actively taking sides and engaging in the battle. And we see another instance of a god snatching a human from the battlefield to rescue him from almost certain death, not to mention patching up injured soldiers from both sides and sending them back into the fray.

There is a lot of killing here, yes, but also some other moments. We can see the soldiers stopping in the middle of the battle to secure their booty, mostly horses, chariots, and armor, and others stepping in to stop the seizure of their comrades’ armor and bodies. The scene seems chaotic, but that seems very realistic for hand-to-hand combat, doesn’t it? This is before the era of the phalanx and the organized army. I find the battle descriptions ringing quite true.

What do we make of Diomedes wounding Aphrodite? For an immortal, she seems shocked by this small flesh wound, when she has been urging the Trojans on to mass slaughter. And in his fury Diomedes even tries to attack Apollo. (Aeneas, of course, has to be rescued so that he can go on to found Rome.)

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: What do we make of Diomedes wounding Aphrodite? For an immortal, she seems shocked by this small flesh wound, when she has been urging the Trojans on to mass slaughter.."

I am going to have to go back and reread this book but my thoughts off the top of my head. Her shock may be derived from the thought that she an immortal, and goddess had in fact been wounded by a mortal man. I do recall myself be rather surprised at the prospects of a mortal man attacking the gods.

In addition, just being a spectator to something, and sitting back watching men slaughter each other is quite a bit different than actually having to experience the same yourself. The fact that she could be wounded or would be probably never occurred to her.

And Aphrodite is the goddess of love and beauty does strike one as being one of the most high maintenance, of the gods, she is the type who probably would cry over a bad hair day and throw a fit if she breaks a nail (this all being meant in humor of course)

[Everyman]

Silver wrote: "And Aphrodite is the goddess of love and beauty does strike one as being one of the most high maintenance, of the gods, she is the type who probably would cry over a bad hair day and throw a fit if she breaks a nail (this all being meant in humor of course) "

LOL!! There are a few little starlets in Hollywood I can think of who act like this. [g]

[Bill]

Are the Homeric Gods immortal in the sense they can't be killed or only immortal in the sense they don't age? Based on Aphrodite's response, I would guess the latter.

Is there a scholarly consensus here? I'm just speaking of the Homeric gods. I know the whole Greek religious tradition is extremely complicated.

[Silver]

Bill wrote: "Are the Homeric Gods immortal in the sense they can't be killed or only immortal in the sense they don't age? Based on Aphrodite's response, I would guess the latter.

Is there a scholarly consensu..."

When considering the Titan's I do not believe that any of them were actually killed, they were just imprisoned in various different ways. Being the gods came from the Titan's I would presume the same rule applies to them as well. Though I suppose it could just be that Zeus choose not to kill them.

[Bill]

Yes. The origin of myths is complicated, lost to time, and often involves merging a lot of different stories emerging to explain a lot of different ritual, and then stories to explain stories.

[Everyman]

Bill wrote: "Are the Homeric Gods immortal in the sense they can't be killed or only immortal in the sense they don't age? Based on Aphrodite's response, I would guess the latter."

No, they can't be killed. But they can be effectively disabled, as was Prometheus.

And late in Book 5, Diomedes attacks Ares, who complains to Zeus, 885, that "Howbeit my swift feet bare me away; otherwise had I long suffered woes there amid the gruesome heaps of the dead, or else had lived strengthless by reason of the smitings of the spear.” He wouldn't have died; "Paeëon spread thereon simples that slay pain, and healed him; for verily he was in no wise of mortal mould." But he could have been injured and strengthless.

[Bill]

Got it. Thank you.

[Thomas]

Everyman wrote: "The scene seems chaotic, but that seems very realistic for hand-to-hand combat, doesn’t it? This is before the era of the phalanx and the organized army. I find the battle descriptions ringing quite true. "

The fleeting way in which the gods take part in the battle and then withdraw, only to join in again later, makes me think that this is at least in part an explanation for the chaos of battle. War personified as Ares appears in the guise of Acamas, the Thracian leader, to cheer on the Trojans in Book 5. But then the real Acamas appears at the beginning of Book 6 when he is killed by Ajax. The confusion of character is like the confusion of battle, and the inconstancy of the gods is a plausible explanation for why the battle goes back and forth the way it does.

[Bill]

If you're willing to change that to "the gods function as a device to increase the sense of chaos" I'd agree. Most accounts of combat -- I've never been in combat -- suggest chaos without the gods.

I find the identifying of individuals and drawing them out for single combat difficult to imagine as a practical matter. But I assume that the fight to the death between two grunts would not be interesting to the Homeric audience.

[Thomas]

Bill wrote: "If you're willing to change that to "the gods function as a device to increase the sense of chaos" I'd agree. Most accounts of combat -- I've never been in combat -- suggest chaos without the gods...."

Well, no, because I don't want to say that the gods are a "device." They are gods, real forces -- perhaps forces that are personified as gods, but real beings nevertheless. When a hail of arrows strikes soldiers all around but leaves you untouched, what better explanation than the protection of a god?

[Everyman]

Bill wrote: "I find the identifying of individuals and drawing them out for single combat difficult to imagine as a practical matter. But I assume that the fight to the death between two grunts would not be interesting to the Homeric audience. "

That made me realize something that hadn't occurred to me before. As far as memory serves, Homer never has one person kill another without naming them both, and usually naming their lineage. There have been so far, as best I can recall, no anonymous deaths, neither Greek nor Trojan.

I'm still working out what I think that means, but I think it's important.

[Cleo]

The naming of individuals is something that I have been wondering about. Looking at it from a modern sense, I am slogging through these names and wondering why on earth Homer would name nearly every single person who comes into play? He doesn't just name them but gives their father's name and where they are from. It seems like he's doing more than personalizing them; it's as if every person who is introduced, however briefly, is important to the narrative. Because we, today, do not place much importance on lineage, it seems strange, but I wonder about his Greek audience. ....??? Would the names of all these warriors be familiar to them (I would think not, because he names the Trojans & their allies as well)?

Like Everyman, I get a feeling this is crucial but I'm struggling to understand why.

BTW, I am enjoying the discussion very much although it moves along pretty quickly. All of you are so engaged with the story and it makes my reading of it even more enjoyable!

[Silver]

I wonder if the naming of them has something to do with notions of honor, and by giving each of their names he is giving them there do credit as it were, and acknowledgement, so they are not just nameless warriors, but deserve to be known for their deeds. And by listing their linage it is a way of distinguishing them, because where a person came from, who there families were was important. It also bestows some of the honor upon their family was well. And it may also personalize it to the Greek audience. Even if every name was not recognizance by every person, it may be that some of the names, and family names would be recognizable. Particularly in the way in which bards would probably travel around to a variety of different places telling this story.

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: ".That made me realize something that hadn't occurred to me before. As far as memory serves, Homer never has one person kill another without naming them both, and usually naming their lineage. There have been so far, as best I can recall, no anonymous deaths, neither Greek nor Trojan.

I'm still working out what I think that means, but I think it's important.


.."

I think so too.

My thinking---and I could be mistaken---was that Homer did this to humanize the men who were killed. These aren't nameless grunts being killed. Homer suggests to me, in fact, that there are no nameless grunts. When men are killed...men are killed. And parents or wives or children are left bereaved.

At that first vignette, "There was a Trojan, Dares, a decent, wealthy man, the god Hephaestus' priest who had bred two sons..." I had jotted down "Masters."

I just struck me that this was an early "Spoon River Anthology." http://www.bartleby.com/84/. In the poems, those aren't just dead people. They're people who were once alive...and now are dead...and deserve to be mourned.


I mean, if we don't care about these deaths, then we're no better than the gods.

[Also, it grabs our hearts and emotionally draws us into the poem in a way a mere special effects description/body count wouldn't be capable of. Homer wants us with him to the end. Long before the end, Homer wants us thinking about what is going to happen to the people of Troy...and others...at the end.}

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "I wonder if the naming of them has something to do with notions of honor, and by giving each of their names he is giving them there do credit as it were, and acknowledgement, so they are not just nameless warriors, but deserve to be known for their deeds. And by listing their linage it is a way of distinguishing them, because where a person came from, who there families were was important. It also bestows some of the honor upon their family was well..."

Very nice. Very apt.

[[deleted user]]

Cleo wrote: " He doesn't just name them but gives their father's name and where they are from. It seems like he's doing more than personalizing them; it's as if every person who is introduced, however briefly, is important to the narrative. Because we, today, do not place much importance on lineage,

Very nice, too. Both you and Silver picked up on the importance of lineage more than I had. Seeing your remarks brought that home to me. Achilles, Agamemnon, etc, had lineage lines as well.

[Bill]

I gut is that it has something to do with a tradition of aristocratic combat. The coats of arms identified a fighter in the middle ages because in a suit of armor you wouldn't otherwise have a clue.

I think this is something that goes beyond Homer, although when something goes beyond Homer, there's no place else to look.

[[deleted user]]

Could be an aspect of time involved.

It shows that good fighters WILL be remembered.

[Lily]

A bit like the Memorial Wall for Vietnam Veterans (designed by Maya Lin) in Washington, DC, plus all the other war memorials in parks around the country? (With the realization those show only one side of the battles fought.)

[[deleted user]]

Nice distinction.

Might the difference be that the men in modern war cemetaries were honored for having fought for their country,

and the Homeric men---even if they were on one level fighting for their side---were honored for having earned honor (time)?

[Bill]

I think, if epic is somehow the story of a battle but also the story of a people, that might somehow be the case. I do think it was part of a long tradition and an an unconscious choice -- to the Greeks I think the notion of not giving lineages would have seemed bizarre. As not reciting the begats would seem bizarre to the Jews. As not knowing family would be bizarre in the middle ages.

And now I'm gone for about a week. Enjoy yourselves.

[[deleted user]]

Bill wrote: "..And now I'm gone for about a week. Enjoy yourselves."

You, too, Bill!

[Lily]

A rather different story about the lack of fear of death among the young: My nephew was facing brain surgery that was at the edge of experimental when he was seventeen. I remember saying to him, "Hard decisions." He responded, "Baskin Robbins is hard decisions."

Yet, insofar as widely believing in immortality in one's twenties, I do to some extent see it as a myth we like to perpetrate to shield upholding systems that will probably always continue to place some of our young in harms way. Just this week I listened to a Chaplain at a major Veterans Administration Hospital talk about the impacts of their experiences on many of the patients in that facility.

Jeff Shaara's The Final Storm: A Novel Of The War In The Pacific is another novel that explores what soldiers, both friend and foe, are willing to undergo at the behest of their leaders and their nations.

[Lily]

Patrice wrote: "I hope your nephew is fine now. I love that line about Baskin Robbins!"

Thank you for asking. Yes, he is in his forties and leads a normal life. I, too, have always enjoyed the Baskin Robbins line. It rather epitomizes his sense of humor, but at the time it spoke to me of his lack of fear of mortality.

Having a son who played hockey, I empathize with your hockey story, too!

[Everyman]

Bill wrote: "I think, if epic is somehow the story of a battle but also the story of a people, ..."

I like that. And the naming of the fighters does keep our attention on the individuals as flesh and blood people living and dying and being mourned.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "But so far I don't see much fear in the men. What do you think? "

Since I'll be posting Books 7 and 8 in a few minutes, so it's not a spoiler, I'll ask you to revisit that question in the context of those books. It seems to me things get more complicated in the courage arena.