Iliad through Book 7

[Everyman]

So we get yet another duel, this one negotiated by Athena and Apollo. Still the gods are manipulating the fighters. (There is something sinister in Athena and Apollo, at 59, disguised as vultures crouching in Zeus’s oak tree. These are two of the more beautiful gods, but they choose to watch in the personas of ugly and hated carrion eaters. This seems to me not accidental, but I’m not sure what Homer is saying.)

Interesting that Hector [69] blames Zeus for not letting the truce endure. Is this entirely an acknowledgment that the gods control all, or is it at least in part an attempt to defuse the blame that attaches to the Trojans for being the ones to break the truce?

Whether it is a moral point or not, I think it is instructive that Menelaus, a king who knows he is no match for Hector, is willing to take up the challenge none of the other Greeks will. I wonder to what extend this incident helped inspire the Greeks who were willing to put themselves forward to fight the immense Persian army; Homer saying that this is how true Greeks face adversity. And once again we see the shame culture at work, Menelaus’s example and Nestor’s regret (one translation calls it a “rebuke”; another says he “scolded them”) that he is too old to take up the challenge, which as a younger man he would have taken up gladly, as he did in the days of his past glory, shame nine Greeks into stepping forward even though probably none of them thinks he is any match for Hector, whom Homer said even Achilles fears to face. (Notable is that Agamemnon is first among them; so much for Achilles’s claim that he was a wimp and feared to engage in battle.)

As an aside, an old man today could do much worse than emulate Nestor. I have both affection and respect for him.

Once again, the single combat is halted without a winner, by the action of a god. But I have to say that I think Ajax (Aias in some translations) comes out looking better; Hector had to retreat from the combat, blaming darkness. But he did show class in offering to exchange gifts and walk away as friends. Just see an American and Taliban doing the same.

Another strange anomaly: why do the Greeks build a wall now when they haven’t for the first nine years of warfare? Seems strange to me. To me, it shows once again that Homer isn’t really concerned with a strict chronological history of the Trojan war, but is bringing together a variety of elements from the long history of the war into a single exciting narrative.

I was struck in this reading, as I haven’t been before, by how many times the parties try to bring an end to the war, but the gods won’t let them. Two single combats haven’t done it, and now the Trojans make a peace offering, but it’s too late; the Greeks smell victory. But they can agree on a temporary truce to gather and bury their dead. The relationship between the Greeks and Trojans is getting more interesting; yes, they’ve been at war for ten years, but they can meet a guest-host relation and forbear from fighting, can exchange gifts (we have so far two explicit examples), can make agreements for truces (one broken, we’ll have to see about the one that ends Book 7), etc.

An interesting point: As the Trojans gather their dead, “Priam forbade weeping,” so the soldiers collected the bodies sadly but in silence. Why?

One final note: either Homer erred, or the translators have erred. At the very end of Book 7, at least two translations say that the ordinary Greeks traded for bronze and iron. The 12th Century Greeks didn’t have iron.

[Silver]

I think that the consent inference of the gods to prevent any attempt to bring the war to an end through one means or another is quite interesting. If I recall, wasn't it in book four that the gods themselves declared it was time for the war to reach a finite end through one means or another, and that either truce must be reached or one side finally and ultimately defeated the other? And yet whenever the Greeks and the Trojan's try to do just that one god or another prevents it from happening. It almost seems as if they are afraid they will have nothing better to do with their time once the war is over. They don't want it to end, because it has provided them with so much amusement thus far. Kind of like a person not wanting a favorite TV show to be canceled.

On the question of the Greeks building the wall, I am inclined to agree that Homer does not necessarily mean for the timeline to be taken literally and is simply tying to display all the different aspects of the battle to the audience. In a way he is trying to fit 10 whole years of fighting into its final last year so the audience might get a fuller picture of how the battle progressed.

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "An interesting point: As the Trojans gather their dead, “Priam forbade weeping,” so the soldiers collected the bodies sadly but in silence. Why?

One final note: either Homer erred, or the translators have erred. At the very end of Book 7, at least two translations say that the ordinary Greeks traded for bronze and iron. The 12th Century Greeks didn’t have iron.

Within my own translation it says:

"Priam commanded none should mourn, but in still silence yield their honored caracaras to the fire and only grieve in heart"

My best guest for the reason of this is in part because the war is not yet over with and so there is an understanding that there will be yet more dead after this, and thus now is not the time for mourning and grief for it is not yet over, and still they most keep their resolve and not give way to their grief and sorrow for what has been in lost. And in part not weeping over the bodies might by a form of respect of honor for what the men had died fighting for, that they should stay strong, and still live on, and not give way to their tears for such is not what the deceased would want of them. Maybe it would also by a sign of weakness and vulnerability. They do not want their enemies to be witness to their tears and grief and thus give the Greeks that satisfaction.

My translation also refers to the trade of iron and bronze.

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: ".One final note: either Homer erred, or the translators have erred. At the very end of Book 7, at least two translations say that the ordinary Greeks traded for bronze and iron. The 12th Century Greeks didn’t have iron. .."

Is that solid? I ask because a couple backgrounds said that very limited amounts of iron were there in 12th century BC Greece.

Internet information even suggests 11th century BC. I don't know how solid that source is.

http://www.mikeanderson.biz/2011/02/g...

I'll see if I can't find the reference in the library books I have.

EDIT ADDED: been browsing this morning. Contradictory information found. But this one appeRs to be ? scholarly... And it seems to comes down on the side of no iron weapons...'though possibly iron tools. [Strauss's statement in he Trojan War " in the Bronze Age iron was relatively rare and expensive" (93) doesn't have any footnote or source listed...]

[Thomas]

Everyman wrote: "One final note: either Homer erred, or the translators have erred. At the very end of Book 7, at least two translations say that the ordinary Greeks traded for bronze and iron. The 12th Century Greeks didn’t have iron"

It's not a translation error (though "bronze" could also be translated as copper or copper coins). This appears to be one of Homer's occasional anachronisms. According to Walter Leaf, it's also one of the few times Homer mentions the legend of Jason (of Golden Fleece fame).

[Juliette]

Everyman wrote: "There is something sinister in Athena and Apollo, at 59, disguised as vultures crouching in Zeus’s oak tree. These are two of the more beautiful gods, but they choose to watch in the personas of ugly and hated carrion eaters. This seems to me not accidental, but I’m not sure what Homer is saying..."

I loved this. I started giggling and my husband (who was watching the Giants vs. 49ers game) had to know what was so funny. It wasn't so easy to explain, but just the image of the two Gods being vultures, and then I had a flash of 60's-70's cartoons with the vultures on the trees "Yulp, yulp..." and as I babbled to my husband about how this was all funny I ended with, "Look, Homer's a genius...okay?" My thought was that instead of waiting for carrion to feed on like real vultures do, Athena and Appolo are feeding on the entertainment and drama that they have stirred up...better than Drama Queens, Drama Vultures...

[Thomas]

The line about the vultures is "seated like vulture (αἰγυπιός) birds." There's an interesting note in the lexicon about the type of vulture this refers to.

αἰγυπιός is the vulture which preys on live animals, γύψ the carrion vulture.

At least they're not scavengers!

[Aparajita]

the iron is an anachronism,kind of like the clock in Julius Caesar. Homer was writing about a period centuries before his time and probably got confused about what may or may not have existed

[Laurel]

Adelle wrote: "Everyman wrote: ".One final note: either Homer erred, or the translators have erred. At the very end of Book 7, at least two translations say that the ordinary Greeks traded for bronze and iron. Th..."

I believe the Hittites used iron weapons.

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "Is that solid? I ask because a couple backgrounds said that very limited amounts of iron were there in 12th century BC Greece.

Internet information even suggests 11th century BC. I don't know how solid that source is."

I was basing my post on a comment by Vandiver. I also looked into it after the question rose here, and as you did, I found contradictory information, but the general thinking seems to be that the 12th century might have known about iron but didn't have the technology or quantity to use it for weapons. But I suppose they might have been trading small amounts for tools or, as one source suggested, for jewelry. If they didn't have iron, I wonder what tools they used to beat their bronze and gold armor and shields. Hard woods? Stone?

Ah well, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.

[[deleted user]]

Actually, I thought it fit in perfectly with the rest of the Iliad's ambiguities and unknown knowns.

[Aparajita]

I don't think Homer could have given a chronological and accurate account of the Trojan war, because already during Homeric times it was very old history...I think what he tried (and succeeded in doing) was to create a fascinating narrative work which could hold the listener's interest- I am from India, and our epics work the same way-divine intervention and gory action and lots of different emotions.. what I like about the Illiad though is Homer's impartiality ie he doesn't turn either side into villains.I also think that's why there are so many sub-stories- little snippets about ancestry and previous incidents etc..
In the light of what a commenter said in a previous post, about Priam favouring Paris, I find it interesting that he agrees to Paris's condition thta Helen would not be returned rather than support Antenor.I wonder if this was because he indulged Paris or it was tied to his idea of pride and honour..
I also like these little insights into customs...this keeping a vanquished warrior's armour and returning his body , was it a universal custom in those times? and also buying the drinks at the end of the day-I am wondering how the economics of soldiering worked,and also the logistics of food.. these guys were not paid soldiers but more like feudal barons, so I suppose they carted around a certain amount of wealth with them, and there wasn't a centralised food preparing body or anything like that....

[Thomas]

Aparajita wrote: "I don't think Homer could have given a chronological and accurate account of the Trojan war, because already during Homeric times it was very old history...I think what he tried (and succeeded in d..."

Aparajita -- It might be a bit off-topic, but I want to ask you what you think the major similarities and differences are between the Iliad and the Indian epics. I read the Mahabharata (the shortened version of course) a few years ago and I've been trying to compare them in a loose way. Just curious if you have any thoughts on that.

(For those who might not know, the Mahabharata is one of the major ancient epics of India. Like the Iliad one of the themes is war, but it's more expansive than the Iliad and in its full version is about ten times as long.)

[Silver]

Aparajita wrote: "In the light of what a commenter said in a previous post, about Priam favouring Paris, I find it interesting that he agrees to Paris's condition thta Helen would not be returned rather than support Antenor.I wonder if this was because he indulged Paris or it was tied to his idea of pride and honour..

I think there may be a couple of possible reasons for why Priam supported Pairs in not returning Helen. Part of it may be because he did favor Pairs and was sentimental about his son. But I think that it may also have to do with questions of honor as well. Look at the way in which both Agemeoenon and Achilles acted when they were forced to give up thier slave women. I think for Pairs to be made to give up "his" woman (however ill gotten she may have been) to another man, would be in a sense emasculating, and it is an action that would reflect upon all of Troy. It would be both consenting ultimate defeat, as well as admitting the wrongness of thier action. It would be as if they were surrounding to the Geeks, opposed to just establishing a truce.

Another part of it may be becasue of the fact that Helen was gifted to Pairs by Aphrodite, so on the one hand they may feel since she was goddess given, Pairs is intended to keep her. And on the other hand to restore Helen to the Greeks may be seen as rejecting the gift of the goddess and they may not wish to cause Aphrodite offence, particularly considering Aphrodite has been actively supporting and helping Pairs, it might be a spit in her face to than decide that Helen wasn't worth it after all. Presuming that Priam is aware of Aphrodite's influence in all of this.

[Everyman]

Aparajita wrote: "I don't think Homer could have given a chronological and accurate account of the Trojan war, because already during Homeric times it was very old history...I think what he tried (and succeeded in d..."

I agree. He wasn't writing history as we define it, but was, I believe, writing cultural history; that is, a history of the way the past culture worked, to both entertain and inform current Greeks. Whether it was literally true wasn't, I think, his point; it was a Paul Revere's Ride, or a Horatio at the Bridge sort of poem, historically based hortatory.

I am wondering how the economics of soldiering worked,and also the logistics of food..

I gather that they did a fair amount of slipping off and pillaging, but also we have the report of the ship bringing, what was it, 1,000 jars of wine from a supporting island? Presumably those left behind could have shipped stores to their fighters.

[Silver]

Patrice wrote: "When I read about the exchanging of gifts it sounded very odd to me and I heard, in the back of my mind, "beware of Greeks bearing gifts". Could this be a set up so that when the Greeks bring the ..."

Also I think it is interesting, but not sure what it means, or if it has any significance, but it seems that there are several instances of the Greeks being described as weeping at various different points. There was one occasions, but unfortunately I cannot now recall what book it occurred in in which it was stated that the Greeks (or at least one of the warriors) was weeping, and yet it was not unmanly, or did not make him less courageous (something to that effect.)

[[deleted user]]

I'm like you, Silver. I read in some book that weeping was not a sign of weakness in Bronze Age men. For the life of me...I can't recall where I read it.

In the Bible, there is also weeping. Example that comes to mind is David.

[[deleted user]]

I really, really liked the opening paragraph. Fagles writes it as

"when a god sends down some welcome blast to sailors
desperate for it, worked to death at the polished oars,
beating the heavy seas, their arms slack with the labor--
so welcome that brace of men appeared to the Trojans
desperate for their captains"

How marvelously descriptive. Oh, God, were the men glad to see Hektor and Paris! You can almost feel their relief...all these centuries later.

[[deleted user]]

Fagles 7.53+

"...hatching instant plans, and coming up to Hector
advised him quickly, "Hector, son of Priam,
a mastermind like Zeus, listen to me now--"

(1) I have my doubts regarding the soundness of "instant" plans and "quickly" advisements.... That hasn't seemed to work out well in the past. Book 1, the confrontation between Agamemnon and Achilles:

"But King Agamemnon answered him in haste"
...
"'Yes!'--blazing Achilles broke in quickly--"

And when Zeus sent the dream to Agamemnon, the dream messenger said, "Listen to me, quickly!"

Achilles took that little, little time to pause, consider, and ultimately refrain from running Agamemnon through with his sword.

(2) I wonder whether that "mastermind like Zeus" is a normal descriptive??? Or, might Helenus be flattering Hector in order to bring him into agreement with his suggestion (one-to-one combat)? As Helenus is Hector's brother, might he know him well enough to know Hector's weaknesses...how to influence him?

[[deleted user]]

At post 1 Everyman had written, "Interesting that Hector [69] blames Zeus for not letting the truce endure. Is this entirely an acknowledgment that the gods control all, or is it at least in part an attempt to defuse the blame that attaches to the Trojans for being the ones to break the truce"

Absolutely an attempt to deflect the blame. Clearly it was a bowman on the Trojan side who had broken the oath. First the Trojans (Paris) wounds the honor of Menelaus (by taking Helen when Paris was supposed to be acting as a guest) and then the Trojans literally wound Menelaus (by shooting him when the Trojans were supposed to be acting as they should during a "truce")

So...can we think of Hector as honorable? He is fighting for the Trojans even though he knows that the cause is wrong... TWICE over... When it comes to ones' own, is it "the right thing to do" to back one's own.....no matter what horrible offense they committed....even when they have broken oaths to the gods?

[[deleted user]]

I won't remember to post this in 4 or 5 Books.

This is a scene in Book 7. But it is important -- very -- to what happens later.

(view spoiler)[Fagles 7.about 90:

Hector is speaking. He is setting up the challenge between himself and one of the Achaeans.

"If that man takes my life with his sharp bronze blade,
he will strip my gear and haul it back to his ships.
But give my body to friends to carry home again,
so Trojan men and Trojan women can do me honor
with fitting rites of fire once I am dead"

Just as Achilles wasn't there at the wedding of Menelaus and Helen---and thus didn't swear to support Menelaus---and therefore broke no oath in leaving Menelaus to fight without him...

So, now too, Achilles is not there---and thus didn't swear to return Hektor's body.

(hide spoiler)]

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "So...can we think of Hector as honorable? He is fighting for the Trojans even though he knows that the cause is wrong... TWICE over... When it comes to ones' own, is it "the right thing to do" to back one's own.....no matter what horrible offense they committed....even when they have broken oaths to the gods."

I think that depends upon ones definition and perspective of honor. To stand by, fight for, and defend ones own family, and/or ones country, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of that family members actions, or of the actions of certain individuals within one's countries, could be considered to be a very high act of honor even if that individual may not agree with the cause themselves.

Would Hector be viewed as honorable if he were to betray his brother or Troy on account of his own personal belief that Paris/Troy is in the wrong? Or even if the actions of Pairs are considered to be wrong, would it be considered a dishonorable act on Hector's part if he were to go against family and country?

[[deleted user]]

Another lovely ring!

I had posted over in Background regarding the structure of the Iliad. Here, too, is another ring:

Fagles 7.about 150:

A) Nestor: "Oh if only--- I were young again!"

B) "When Arcadia's champion Ereuthalion strode forth"

C) "With King Areithous' armour,

C) massive Areithous...

B)"he passed it on to a favorite henchman, Ereuthalion"

A) "Oh make me young again..."

[[deleted user]]

Pride. I know! We tend to think of the adage we grew up with: "Pride goeth before a fall."

But according to "A Guide to the Iliad" pride is a necessary virtue in the Bronze Age culture... it motivates men to great deeds as well as to great risks. But great deeds are desired.

At Fagles 7. about 198:

"He's the one to do his Achaean comrades proud,
do himself proud, oo, if he comes through alive
from the fight that waits him, dueling to the death"

"Father Zeus, let Ajax win, or Tydeus' son
or the proud king himself of all Mycenae's gold"

[[deleted user]]

The oath. Again, the very seriousness of the oath. This is an oath preceding one-to-one combat to decide guilt or innocence. And it's not allowed to make one of those If-you-do-thus-for-me, then-I-will-do-thus-for-you prayers.

The Achaeans pray, "Father Zeus--
ruling over us all from Ida, god of greatness, glory!
Now let Ajax take this victory, shining triumph!
But if you love Hector, if you hold him dear,
at least give both men equal strength and glory"

Very interesting wording, I thought. At the first duel, the Achaeans had prayed for the man with right on his side to win and for the loser to die. But....somehow....throuh the design of some god (how else?) Paris didn't face death. So now the Achaeans suspect the gods favor the Trojans. Now the Achaeans plead...if you love or hold Hector dear, "then at least give both men equal strength and glory."


They know that really they can't ask for victory HERE. But they ask, at least don't let us lose.
And look. That IS how this match turned out. A draw.

Interesting, I thought, that Homer showed us the fear of the Trojans and of Hector himself.

"terrible tremors shook each Trojan fighter's knees==
Hector himslef, his heart pounding against his ribs."

Homer has gone to some length to tell us what a great warrior Hector is. "Even Achilles dread to pit himself against him" (Fagle 7.about 130). So why are the Trojans and Hector afraid? Maybe because then KNOw that their cause is in the wrong...and if the gods are judging fairly, well, then Hector should lose even if he is the stronger.

[[deleted user]]

At 29 Silver wrote: I think that depends upon ones definition and perspective of honor. To stand by, fight for, and defend ones own family, and/or ones country, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of that family members actions, or of the actions of certain individuals within one's countries, could be considered to be a very high act of honor even if that individual may not agree with the cause themselves.

Would Hector be viewed as honorable if he were to betray his brother or Troy on account of his own personal belief that Paris/Troy is in the wrong? Or even if the actions of Pairs are considered to be wrong, would it be considered a dishonorable act on Hector's part if he were to go against family and country?

I totally understand what you're saying.

And how difficult when the two positions of honor can't be spanned at the same time.

Hector HAS to back his brother---even though he knows, even though he has judged, even though the gods themselves have judged Paris to be guilty. It's family.

And, Hector HAS to back the punishment that the gods are going to mete out for the violation of the guest-host rule. Does he want society itself to fall apart? Does he want and expect other peoples to follow guest/host rules? But is willing to overlook it when the affront to the gods has been committed by someone in his own family? One set of rules for you/ A different set of rules for me and mine?

How far DO we go in defending or backing our own?
My country right or wrong.
My family right or wrong---no matter how egregious their actions were. And you can't get much more egregious than stealing a man's wife and treasure... (Seduction or outright theft...it is a moot point....Paris broke the guest/host rules)... Dooming hundreds of Achaeans to death. Likewise hundreds of Trojans.

Is it right to defend a wrong action even when you know it is going to cost the life of every man, woman, and child in Troy? The life of your own wife? Your child? Your father? Your mother? Where do we draw the line and say, that's it?

Or is it that we initially are willing to accept unacceptable behavior because even though we hate the behavior... in the early stages (like when Paris had first brought Helen to Troy) is doesn't look as though it's going to cost us very much personally. Is that action "not that wrong" if it's not going to cost us? And he's one of us. So we accept it. Maybe begrudgingly, not with a happy heart, but we accept it. Is it OK then? Or is it that with each succeeding step along the way it becomes more and more difficult to rectify the wrong?

I like Hector. I like liking Hector. I feel much more sympathy for him than I do for Agamemnon or Menelaus. But is it feelings which should determine the rightness or wrongess of an action?


The battle isn't just shifting ground there on the plains of Troy. The battle is within us, too, as we can see the point of view of this man.... and then that man.... as we feel for this one.. and then that one...

If we're routing for justice, then we should, it seems, be routing for the punishment of the people of Troy, the people who have harbored wife-stealing Paris for ten years. But we're not routing for that. Do we not want justice?

In hearing the story of Hector and his wife and son....has Hector become "one of our own"? And so we want some slack cut for him? We want him to escape the punishment that is due him?

Sigh.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote:If we're routing for justice, then we should, it seems, be routing for the punishment of the people of Troy, the people who have harbored wife-stealing Paris for ten years. But we're not routing for that. Do we not want justice? "

Unfortunately I think that answer to that question is at least to some degree determined on just what Helen's role is in all of this, and the answer to that question is elusive and vague with no real answer.

If one presumes Helen to have been taken completely against her will, and being held as a true captive and thus one must than also assume that she is in fact being raped by Pairs, if she is with him against her will I think it would be a lot more difficult to feel sympathetic towards Troy and those who would support such a cause.

But if one were to presume that Helen had gone of her own free will and had true affections for Paris, while we may still disagree with what he has done, it is easier to want to rout for Troy, and the hopes that Helen will not be forced to return in shame to a husband she tried to escape from, but to hope she may stay with the man of whom she loves. Even if that is not the truly just action to take.

And of course it also does not help that even though we can acknowledge that the Greeks may be the ones in the right they just come off as so dang unlikable that it is hard to bring yourself to want to rout for them. Also I do think that already knowing the outcome as we are reading this plays into it. We know the Greeks won the day, and thus had their justice, and knowing that justice was served in the end, makes it a lot easier than to look upon Troy fondly, because we know they have already been punished for it, so that makes one more inclined towards sentimental feelings for them. It is impossible to judge what are reactions would have been if we had to choose a side without knowing the outcome.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "If one presumes Helen to have been taken completely against her will, and being held as a true captive and thus one must than also assume that she is in fact being raped by Pairs, if she is with him against her will I think it would be a lot more difficult to feel sympathetic towards Troy and those who would support such a cause.


But if one were to presume that Helen had gone of her own free will and had true affections for Paris, while we may still disagree with what he has done, it is easier to want to rout for Troy, and the hopes that Helen will not be forced to return in shame to a husband she tried to escape from, but to hope she may stay with the man of whom she loves. Even if that is not the truly just action to take.


i would agree with that if I were looking at the situation from a 20th century perspective. In that case Helen's feelings might be considered, but as it is Helen's feeling count for absolutely nothing when it comes to determining the rights of Menelaus. She is his, right?

It's not so much a case that Helen would suffer if she is being raped, it's that the time of Menelaus suffers when she is being raped. Remember the words of Nestor in Book 1 or 2: let's not talk about going home until every Greek has bedded a faifthful Trojan wife. The physical pleasure of taking a woman seems to be secondary to the implication that it will hurt the time of her husband more than it hurts her. Or at least that aspect is more important. I couldn't help but notice that it wasn't just wives, but faithful wives,

I would think, from a pre-homeric perspective, that if Helen left of her own volition, then society must scorn and abhor her eeven more intensely. The perfididy of her bringing a war that will kill sons and husbands and fathers...and the slavery of women.... All for the whim of a woman! I would hate her then with every fiber of my being. I would spit on her as she walked by. I would pray that somehow Menelaus can regain possession of her and punish her back in Sparta. I can only not despise Helen if she were kidnapped.



Silver wrote: "Also I do think that already knowing the outcome as we are reading this plays into it. We know the Greeks won the day, and thus had their justice, and knowing that justice was served in the end, makes it a lot easier than to look upon Troy fondly, because we know they have already been punished for it, so that makes one more inclined towards sentimental feelings for them"

That is a fantastic thought! Yes! Because we know that theyhave been punished we allow ouselves sympathy for them. Excellent observation.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "Silver wrote: "If one presumes Helen to have been taken completely against her will, and being held as a true captive and thus one must than also assume that she is in fact being raped by Pairs, if..."

In my original thoughts about Helen I was speaking primarily about how we ourselves as readers (not the original audience) would come by our thoughts and opinions as to what side our support and sympathy should and does fall upon.

Though I do think it is interesting to note that Homer seems to view Troy with a sympathetic eye, and though thus far not much have been seen of Helen, what glimpse we have of her does not seem to be a particularly negative one and yet it seems not even he makes it clear as to where her feelings lie, and leaves room to suggest her feelings may be split down the middle between Menelaus and Pairs.

[[deleted user]]

I'm tending these past couple of days to think that Paris simply abducted Helen. I'm basing this on Priam's having said in an earlier book that he didn't blame Helen, and then on the fact that Paris lost that first one-to-one combat (and therefore is proved guilty), and on Priam referring to Paris "who caused our long hard campaign" (Fagles 7.430).

[[deleted user]]

Quite the speech the herald proclaimed to the Achaeans. It seemed to have been carefully crafted.

1) the Trojans try to concentrate the blame on Paris
"Paris who caused our long hard campaign" (Fagles 7.447)

2) the Trojans try to make something like common cause w/ the Achaeans---saying they hate Paris, too
"would to god he'd drowned before that day" (Fagles 7.450)

3) the herald makes a concilliatory pitch towards the Achaeans,
Admitting that the Achaeans are in the right
"the lawful wife of Menelaus," (Fagles 7.452)

4) implying Menelaus still has plenty of time and need not fight
"the renowned Menelaus" (Fagles 7.452)

5) and finishing with the threat to go on fighting if there is no resolution

Homer says "so he spoke
And a hushed silence went through all the ranks"

My sense is that the ranks would have been willing to accept the return of treasure plus Paris's payment....

It was only the timely words of Diomedes (interjected before any man cohld speak of the reasonableness of the Trojan offer) which cut off consideration. Diomedes having had such astounding success on the battlefield is in no mood to be conciliatory. Is it hubris?

"it's obvious--any fool can see it. Now, at last,
The neck of Troy's in the noose--her doom is sealed" (Fagles 7.464-65)

[[deleted user]]

After the battles...

"and hard as it was to recognize each man, each body,
With clear water they washed the clotted blood away" (Fagles 7.492)


I had only read these words, passing over them without slowing down to picture what was being said here. But then I read about this scene in some bacground book. I think it was probably in The War That Killed Achilles, although I'm not certain.

Anyway, many of the bodies would not hVe been recognizable...as Homer mentions, they would have been covered with blood. Also, theu may have been rather hacked, and they would have been bloated already...and since the Achaeans would have stripped them of all their armour there wouldn't have been anything left to use to identify them.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "I'm tending these past couple of days to think that Paris simply abducted Helen. I'm basing this on Priam's having said in an earlier book that he didn't blame Helen, and then on the fact that Par..."

On the other hand Priam's reassuring Helen that he does not blame her could suggest that he may have reason to place blame on her but simply does not do so.

After all if Paris had straight up taken Helen against her will and she was being held captive and had no feelings of affection for Pairs than would Priam really need to tell Helen he did not blame her? Would it not be a no brainier so to speak if there was no possibility that she could in any way be viewed as guilty, it would not in fact need to be stated.

If Helen was made to look clearly like a victim and it was not ambiguous, than I do not think that her blamelessness would need to be verbalized to her by essentially the accomplice of her alleged kidnapper.

In regards to Pairs by declared as the cause, I think that even if Helen had gone willingly with Paris, Pairs as the man would be seen as primarily responsible for what happened. As you have already stated before the feelings of the woman would not really be counted for much, or anything. So even if Helen does love Pairs, Pairs will still be seen as the one whom took Helen from her husband, for if he did not take that action than Helen likely would not have taken it upon herself to leave her husband and chase after Pairs, whatever feelings she may have.

In addition, if Paris had not first chosen Aphrodite and thus been granted Helen by the goddess, Helen might never have given Pairs a second thought.

I think that Helen was essentially passive in her "abduction" but I do not think that she is completely without affection and feeling for Pairs and that she may have agreed to go with him (perhaps with the help/persuasion of Aphrodite) and that she was not in fact forcefully taken and being held utterly against her will.

[Laurel]

Patrice wrote: "A couple of thoughts.

maybe Laurele could offer some expertise here.
It is my understanding that "thou shalt not commit adultery" means a man cannot take a married woman.
He can marry a lot of wom..."

 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. --Leviticus 20:10

 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. -- Matthew 5:32

[Silver]

Patrice wrote: "Third, I think Paris could have taken Helen and not expected such consequences. How many of us do things on impulse that we know we shouldn't? People are not all that rational. They give in to temptation and worry about the results later. ..."

Not to mention the fact that Pairs was told by one of the gods that he could have Helen. He did not act purely upon his own whim and desire. Helen was gifted to him by a Aphrodite. And when a god offers you a gift, I think it is reasonable to think that you are in your rights to presume that when a god tells you you may have something that you can take such without expecting such grave consequences. He may have felt he did have a divine right to Helen and perhaps would be ultimately protected someway (and while it is true Aphrodite does protect him in the war) but it would not be altogether unreasonable for Paris to presume that since Aphrodite told him he could have Helen, than the problem with the Greeks she would resolve in some fashion or other.

[[deleted user]]

At 40 Silver wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I'm tending these past couple of days to think that Paris simply abducted Helen. I'm basing this on Priam's having said in an earlier book that he didn't blame Helen, and then on th...". Etc.

Certainly. Indeed, as you pointed out, I have made some of those same arguments myself.

But after the last couple of Books, particularly after thinking of Hector's son pulled from his nurse's arms, his screams and the heartbreak of his watching mother, his crimson brains all smashed on the walls.... The heartbreak of so many, many on both sides both there at Troy and back home in Greece...

If Helen, a queen who should certainly know her responsibilities... If Helen voluntarily ran off with Paris, then she is truly such a selfish bitch that I have no option but to intensely hate her...

And I would rather not hate Helen.... So I've decided to look for whatever clues might pausibly (sp?..) might support my beleiving that she was abducted.

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "A couple of thoughts.

maybe Laurele could offer some expertise here.
It is my understanding that "thou shalt not commit adultery" means a man cannot take a married woman.
He can marry a lot of wom..."

Good post. I suppose that there might be some overlap amongst Middle Eastern peoples regarding adultery. I strongly agree with you on the property rights. Helen and her treasure belonged tp Menelaus.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "If Helen, a queen who should certainly know her responsibilities... If Helen voluntarily ran off with Paris, then she is truly such a selfish bitch that I have no option but to intensely hate her...

And I would rather not hate Helen.... So I've decided to look for whatever clues might pausibly (sp?..) might support my beleiving that she was abducted. "

Quite funny how I am something of the opposite. Not to say I would dislike like her if she were truly abducted against her will. But I rather prefer to believe that she had at least to some degree gone willingly. Part of it is the fact that within these patriarchal societies I do find any act of rebellion on a woman's behalf to be in its own right admirable. Even if the action itself is not necessarily justified or "right" or "good." I do prefer a villainous woman over a self-sacrificing one.

[Lily]

You all remind me of a banner I saw tonight: DNA or choice, gay is not going to go away.

The evidence seems pretty much the same for extramarital affairs. As the stories of Noah or Leah or Bathsheba or especially Tamar suggest, Biblical stories recognize life is more complex than laws, valuable as laws and moral guidelines may be. To this reader, the relationships of Helen with her two husbands seem such as neither to condemn nor to condone -- enough is simply not known, as is so often true about human relationships. But, we do know many of the perceptions and assumptions and reported events on which the story seems to hinge.

I read a female commentator on Homer this week and it struck me how tough she was on Helen. I found myself asking if what was said could be justified by the text or doesn't the text equally support more gentle or kind assessments of Helen's character. From there, I wandered to the extent to which we pick our facts to see what we want to see -- I certainly know that I have been critical of Helen in some of my readings of her. But, if I attempt to walk in her sandals?

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "You all remind me of a banner I saw tonight: DNA or choice, gay is not going to go away.

The evidence seems pretty much the same for extramarital affairs. As the stories of Noah or Leah or Bathsh..."

For me in a world in which women do have a choice in marriage, and have the option of getting a divorce, there is no forgivable excuse for extramarital affairs. At root I am in fact a very monogamous person.

But when speaking of societies in which women are given virtually no choice and once one is married "tell death do us part" it taken literally, I feel that a woman needs at times to be ruthless and mercenary (not saying I view Helen as such) to break free of the chains she are bond to.

[Thomas]

Patrice wrote: "

I had an argument with my husband today. He still insists that Homer is not against the war. The way you describe the war is the way I read it too, But somehow, someway, my husband insists that this is a glorious accomplishment for the heroic Greeks. sigh... ..."

On the other hand, Homer may be neither for nor against the war. He could be describing war as a human phenomenon -- he shows how men glory in it, but also how they suffer for it. This is one of the reasons why the story is so timeless, I think. Wars haven't really changed all that much. Frequently there is a poetic "reason" for war, a purported cause for which men fight and think themselves right. But that reason is often just a symbol, a rallying cry, as I think Helen is. I think the reason why it's unclear exactly why Helen went with Paris is that for Homer the awful reality of battle drowns out the reasons for war, no matter how honorable (or dishonorable) they may be.

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "Right! .So Paris was downright pious in taking Helen"

Lol. Literally.

But again, as mentioned somewhere by someone, the gods don't actually seem to "force" events... It's more as though they are aware of one's weaknesses or pre-existing dispositions...and nudge or suggest or...tempt the players towards certain behaviors....which the players already were inlined towards. Like, Patrice, I think mentioned, Paris chose Aphrodite because he was already inclined that way.


Or have they forced actions in the Ilad which I have forgotten??

(how convenient to have the gods prompt you to do what you really wanted to do anyway. Sometimes, anyway.)



Though the gods, some of them anyway, do seem to know some future outcomes.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Right! .So Paris was downright pious in taking Helen"

Lol. Literally.

But again, as mentioned somewhere by someone, the gods don't actually seem to "force" events... It's more..."

Off the top of my head I cannot think of a time in which they have directly forced an event to occur, but there influence does give a strong shove to make things happen that would not have otherwise.

If I recall when Pairs choose Aphrodite he was promised the most beautiful woman in the world, but was there indication that he already know this woman would be Helen? Was it common knowledge that she was regarded as such? When he chooses was he truly choosing Helen herself or simply choosing love?

And supposing that he had already had an eye upon Helen herself, without being given Aphrodite's blessing would he have completely on his own accord taken it upon himself to attempt to steal her away?

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: ". Part of it is the fact that within these patriarchal societies I do find any act of rebellion on a woman's behalf to be in its own right admirable. Even if the action itself is not necessarily justified or "right" or "good..."


But a patriarchal society circa 1200 BC is exactly where Helen lived. (you know...to the exent she "lived"). We can't judge her by our standards. And the fallout, which she probably should have expected, she is a queen after all, and Agamemnon is her brother-in-law, is so horrific.

No, I no longer want to think of Helen as the scum of the earth, so I'm moving forward thinking of her as having been abducted.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: No, I no longer want to think of Helen as the scum of the earth, so I'm moving forward thinking of her as having been abducted."

We just have very different ways of viewing Helen. From my point of view, I do not wish to think of the legendary Helen, and Spartan Queen, as truly being nothing more than a typically meek, submissive woman who has no choice within her life, and who is completely at the mercy of the men in her lives (and the gods)and is nothing more than a victim.

While this was the life of many women living in such a time period there is evidence that there were women who did rebel, there were strong women who went against the social expectations and challenged the world they lived in. And I like to think of Helen as having taken a decisive step in her own life, of striving for a moment of freedom and independence. I like to think that she, at least to some degree asserted her will and made a choice for herself, attempted to break free of the chains.

[Silver]

Patrice wrote: "It just dawned on me. All of this is Paris' fault.
Paris chose Aphrodite (lust) rather than wisdom, power, etc. Aphrodite promised him the most beautiful woman in the world. Well, the most beaut..."

While I have no great love for Pairs, I do think that is a tricky one. Aphrodite may have felt slighted if he rejected her gift, deeming it "not good enough" even if his reasons for doing so were noble ones. I am not sure how well turning down Helen would have worked out from him. Aphrodite may very well have said, oh well too bad take her or nothing or may have felt insulted and caused some other form of trouble for him and Troy. She may even had ended up causing some misfortune to Helen to cause her to no longer be the most beautiful woman in the world in order to justify selecting another woman for Pairs.

[[deleted user]]

I never said I thought Helen had to be happy. Hera and Helen can both be unhappy with their spouses. Helen could complain to Menelaus just as Hera could complain to Zeus. But Hera didn't run off with another god. Hera didn't cause major disruptions in her society (of the gods) resulting in hundreds of ruined lives and dead babies.

Silver wrote In a world where there was no choice or freedom given, a woman had to do whatever was necessary to try and carve out her own life for herself.

I disagree. In a world so unstable, a world in which one held responsibilities as queen, a woman who threw her responsibilities off, not caring the costs to her people, to runoff with some fair face who was willing to break some of the most sacred elements which did a little to maintain a stable society...making a mockery of Zeus's laws...(and surely punishment will follow. Agamemnon himself said Zeus might be slow to punish, but punish he will eventually)...such a woman would be abhorrent.

It's already been established that these are perilous times. Most especially for the people towards the bottom, the people Menelaus and Helen ruled over---the people who expected their rulers---and it was Helen's kingdom...Menelaus's kingdom only because he married her--- The people probably didn't expect much, but they probably hoped and prayed for a little stability. Many men who would otherwise be supporting their familes through a little farming and maybe a couple of goats will have been conscripted for service in Troy. A harder lot for their wives. Possibly starvation for their children. Historically there is thought that as a result of the Trojan War the Greeks were weakened to such an extent that that tribes from the north were able to successfully invade and overpower the Greek tribes forcing many to flee.

To carve out a life for oneself no matter the cost???

No, I don't want to think of Helen as caring so little for her people that she doesn't care what it costs them...husbands, children (some probably starved with their fathers gone), eventually their very homes, possibly their very lives. I don't want to think of Helen as thinking her own happiness --- and how happy does she seem to be now? --- is worth whatever it happens to cost someone else...whatever it happens to cost HER people.

I would like to have some respect for the most beautiful woman in the world. Hence, abduction.

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "So it wasn't Paris' fault either? lol That leaves... Aphrodite. Hmmm, yes, lust causes lots and lots of problems, even today!"

Mmm...yes.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: " never said I thought Helen had to be happy. Hera and Helen can both be unhappy with their spouses. Helen could complain to Menelaus just as Hera could complain to Zeus. But Hera didn't run off with another god. Hera didn't cause major disruptions in her society (of the gods) resulting in hundreds of ruined lives and dead babies. ."

Hera did cause Hercules to slaughter his own wife and children

As for respecting Helen goes we just have very different ways of doing so.

Posted from my revised version for the above mentioned post:

We just have very different ways of viewing Helen. From my point of view, I do not wish to think of the legendary Helen, and Spartan Queen, as truly being nothing more than a typically meek, submissive woman who has no choice within her life, and who is completely at the mercy of the men in her lives (and the gods)and is nothing more than a victim.

While this was the life of many women living in such a time period there is evidence that there were women who did rebel, there were strong women who went against the social expectations and challenged the world they lived in. And I like to think of Helen as having taken a decisive step in her own life, of striving for a moment of freedom and independence. I like to think that she, at least to some degree asserted her will and made a choice for herself, attempted to break free of the chains.

[[deleted user]]

Staying up WAY too late.

You must try to see Helen honestly from where you sit.
I must try to see her honestly from where I sit.

Yes.

(although I suspect we both are trying to see her as we WANT to see her and subsequently trying to justify that position)

Closing shop.