Iliad through Book 22

[Everyman]

For discussion of Book 22.

[Silver]

My apologies for my absence from the discussion. I had to deal with a combination of computer problems and personal issues and sort of fell out things for a while, but I have been much looking forward to this book.

Even though this was for me one of the most heartbreaking books within the Iliad, even though I knew it was inevitably coming. It contained one of my favorite scenes and I think one of the most fascinating moments.

I loved the conversation between Zeus and Minerva over the fate of Hector:

"The gods beheld them, all much mov'd; and Jove said "O ill sight! A man I love so much I see forc'd in most unworthy flight about great Ilion; my heart grieves, he paid many vows, with thighs and sacrificed grieves, both on the lofty brows of Ida, and Ilion's height. Consult we, shall we free his life from death, or give it nowt' Achilles victory?

Minerva answered: "Altar Fate? One long since mark'd for death, now take from death? Do thou but know he still shall run beneath our other censures."

(From the Chapman translation)

I love the idea that even the gods are bond to obey the rules of fate and that in this there is a power of which even they must answer to and of which they do not have ultimate authority over. That the world is ordered by something beyond there on control and in the same way that the gods are seen to play with the lives of men, so it seems Fate uses the gods to act out what demands.

It also makes me wonder, the gods have fallen under much criticism for their treatment of men during this book have appeared to be petty, vindictive, and seemingly without much compassion for man, thinking little of their lives, but than how much of what they did were they doing purely for their own pleasure, and how much where they doing because such was already predetermined by Fate to happen?

Also earlier there was a discussion about Zeus's support of Troy and if in fact he was genuine or if he was doing it purely to fulfill the promise that the Greeks would have to loose with Achilles to prove to them how much he was needed. Within this moment Zeus proves his genuine remorse about the fate of Hector and I think proves that at least to some degree his support of Tory was genuine. He considers going back on the promises of Achilles' victory and sparing the life of Hector which could have changed the outcome of the war altogether, but is reasoned with by Athena, the voice of wisdom that Fate is not even for the gods to change.

[Everyman]

Silver wrote: "My apologies for my absence from the discussion. I had to deal with a combination of computer problems and personal issues and sort of fell out things for a while, but I have been much looking forw..."

You're forgiven as long as you're back for good. [g]

It also makes me wonder, the gods have fallen under much criticism for their treatment of men during this book have appeared to be petty, vindictive, and seemingly without much compassion for man, thinking little of their lives, but than how much of what they did were they doing purely for their own pleasure, and how much where they doing because such was already predetermined by Fate to happen?

That's a really great question. Homer seems generally to give the impression that the gods are pretty much free to do anything that doesn't directly conflict with the ultimate fate (death) or the warriors, but whether they are required in any way to actually advance or help that happen is another question entirely, and a really good one.

[Everyman]

Silver wrote: "Also earlier there was a discussion about Zeus's support of Troy and if in fact he was genuine or if he was doing it purely to fulfill the promise that the Greeks would have to loose with Achilles to prove to them how much he was needed."

My view was that he was in favor of Troy all along (doesn't he say that early on?) but that he agreed with Hera to let her destroy Troy in exchange for his future right to destroy some city she loved (not that she could stop him, but she could make it uncomfortable for him.) But I thought he temporarily injected himself into the issue on Troy's side because of the plea of Thetis. But I think you're right that he was really a Trojan preferrer all along, but let others ultimately have their way in this case.

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "You're forgiven as long as you're back for good. [g].."

I will try my best.

Everyman wrote:but whether they are required in any way to actually advance or help that happen is another question entirely, and a really good one.
."

It makes me wonder, if it was Fate all along that Hector was to be killed by Achilles, and if that is this case, than Aphrodite helping Pairs seduce Helen in the first place with simply be a way of acting to bring about this necessary Fate.

Just how far is ones fate predetermined, is ones entire life already decided from birth? Or is it our individual actions which bring about a certain Fate?

Was Hector determined from the day of his birth to have the death he had, or was that fate only created for him because Pairs took Helen. And would it have been potentially possible for him under other circumstances to live a long and fruitful life, and it was only ill luck and coincidence of the actions of another which doomed him?

[Thomas]

Silver wrote: "It makes me wonder, if it was Fate all along that Hector was to be killed by Achilles, and if that is this case, than Aphrodite helping Pairs seduce Helen in the first place with simply be a way of acting to bring about this necessary Fate. "

It seems like the final fate of men is predetermined, but the route that they take in getting there is not. Their decisions may lengthen or shorten their lives, as may the decisions (or whims) of the gods. The interesting thing is that they don't seem to deny their fate. Achilles' decision to fight and die beneath the walls of Troy is fatalistic, as is Hector's final decision to fight Achilles in this book. They both know they will die, so they choose to die in the best way they can.

[Silver]

Thomas wrote: "It seems like the final fate of men is predetermined, but the route that they take in getting there is not. Their decisions may lengthen or shorten their lives, as may the decisions (or whims) of the gods. ."

While the direct route may not be already written, and might be a bit of improvising so to speak on the part of the gods, if it was predetermined that Hector and Achilles were to die in this war, they had to get there somehow, and thus perhaps the gods are not entirely the vindictive, petty, self-serving beings of which they at first appear, but rather they themselves are just agents of fate. Granted they may have some freedom in just how they do go about doing this, I cannot imagine there is any nice and gentle way to bring about a war destined to cause the death of two heroes. The gods clearly do have regret over the fact that this must happen, even if they mayhap's not always act it.

[Silver]

Patrice wrote: "Yes, that's why Zeus did not save his son Sarpedon from being killed. I think that's a good point, even the gods are bound by "Fate". But I always go back to the idea that "Fate" is what happened..."

Though it seems that it is insinuated that theoretically Zeus could have altered Fate and saved Hector in this instance but doing such would have had consequences, and it seems suggested that even if Zeus decided not to allow Achilles his victory, Hector would simply have died by another means.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "he paid many vows, with thighs and sacrificed grieves..."

What struck me in reading that passage was how much the love of the gods seemed to be based on value received: this man made many sacrifices/ therefore we love him. So not, "We love Him because He first loved us." So, "We better sacrifice...so that maybe the gods will love us ... and maybe they will do beneficial things for us."

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "one of the most heartbreaking books within the Iliad..."

It was. Priam.

"and the old man moaned...
The old man cried, pitifully, hands reaching out to him,
... dear child ....
Oh if only the gods loved him as much as I do.....
... my boy...
Pity me too!
...dear boy--
dear child I brought to birth" [Fagles]

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "It makes me wonder, if it was Fate all along that Hector was to be killed by Achilles..."

You pose an intriguing way to view the matter...Do the characters have to do what they do in order to trigger their fate?

I liked Fagles line: "...there stood Hector,
shackled fast by his deadly fate, holding his ground,
exposed in front of Troy and the Scaean Gates."

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "Yes, that's why Zeus did not save his son Sarpedon from being killed. I think that's a good point, even the gods are bound by "Fate". But I always go back to the idea that "Fate" is what happened so it can't possibly be changed. It would be changing the past, which is impossible. To change fate would be to change the laws of the universe.


.."

Possible.

Another thought: Zeus DOES have the power to change a person's fate (ie, he could have saved Sarpedon). However, an apt analogy, I think, is that each person's fate represents a thread. If a thread is pulled out, it's not just the pattern of the remaining cloth that is changed. Ultimately, the cloth unravels. Chaos. Hopeless confusion and disorder. The gods have already had their fill of chaos. Zeus brought order out of chaos. But I think he had to kill him [Chaos] to do it. [Maybe Zeus only locked Chaos up somewhere below the earth.]

EDIT ADDED: not a spoiler (view spoiler)[

I was mistaken about Zeus killing Chaos. But found some interesting bits when researching. From “Words from the Myths” by Isaac Asimov [A delightful read. I read it to my daughter when she was young].


“The Greeks took their myths very seriously. Since the gods controlled natural forces, it was wise to treat them with careful consideration.” I browse on. And then I pause. Asimov wrote: “We…despise a hectoring bully.” I had never made the association between “Hector” and “to hector,” but I googled, and the connection is there: “hector” A bully. To intimidate or dominate in a blustering way. To behave like a bully; swagger. From the Latin, from the Greek: Hector.


But back to chaos. Asimov: “We still use the word ‘chaos’ today to express anything that is in hopeless confusion and disorder…


The word has come down to us in another and more familiar form, but one which is practically never recognized.

About 1600, A Flemish chemist named Jan Baptista van Helmont was studying the vapors that were produced when charcoal was burned…..

A vapor has no shape of its own….Such a substance, without shape or form, is an example of chaos. Van Helmont decided to use a name for it that was suggested by the word. His language was Flemish and he spelled “chaos” according to the Flemish pronunciation—“gas.” What a great story, right?

But back to Zeus and Chaos. Chaos gave birth to Uranus and Gaea, who in turn gave birth to the Titans, the powerful of whom was Cronus.

“The word Cronus is not Greek in its origin and is probably a hangover from those who inhabited Greece before the Greeks themselves arrived. It was easy to suppose that the unfamiliar word, Cronus, was actually the familiar Greek word “Chronos,’ meaning ‘time.’

And Zeus was the oldest/and the youngest son of Cronus. Zeus didn’t kill Cronus, because the gods can’t be killed. Sorry. But he overthrew him. Hope the little story on the background of the word “gas” makes up for my mistakes regarding Zeus and Chaos.


(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

So is it as (I think Patrice) remarked? That Achilles' armor has "magical" properties?

Patroclus wears the armor and fights fiercelessly. Patroclus, like Achilles, goes beyond the proper boundaries. (I do notice that Achilles is the only character who questions the gods when they appear to him.)

And now Hector is wearing the armor of Achilles.

"So Hector, nursing his quenchless fury, gave no ground" (Fagles 22. about 115).

However: an important difference, perhaps, is that Achilles WOULDN'T fight until he was properly acknowledged. Hector won't STOP fighting because of his concern about what others will think: "If I slip inside the gates and walls, Polydamas will be first to heap disgrace on me" (Fagles 22.118).



And Hector, like Achilles, now sees what his pride has cost him:

"Now my army's ruined, thanks to my own reckless pride" (Fagles 22.124).

"So he wavered." That so appealed to me. I can relate to wavering.


EDIT added: Well, so much for that theory. Too bad. I liked it. But now I read the words of Andromache, weaving at her loom, "He [Achilles] my have put an end to that fatal headstrong pride
that always seized my Hector {So...Hector had pride even before he wore Achilles' armor}"

[[deleted user]]

I really felt for Hector round about line 280.

Athena, in the form of Deiphobus:
"Come, let us stand our ground together--beat him back."

And Hector, relieved, grateful, AND...seemingly feeling that he is being backed up as an individual...for his sake:

"'Deiphobus!' --Hector, his helmet flashing, called out to her--
'dearest of all my brothers, all these warring years,
of all the sons that Priam and Hecuba produced!
Now I'm determined to praise you all the more,
you who dared--seeing me in these straits-
to venture out from the walls, all for MY sake"

And yet...these heart-touching words are underpinned with that same Greek trade-talk: I praise you all the more...BECAUSE you are helping me.

EDIT added: a bit of that even in the scene with Andromache: I very much liked the scene early in the book with Hector, Andromache, and their young son. But Andromache is a realist: "Hector, what help are you to him, now you are dead?"

[[deleted user]]

Bit of info on the words "hector" and "chaos" added in edit at 13.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "Yes, that's why Zeus did not save his son Sarpedon from being killed. I think that's a good point, even the gods are bound by "Fate"."

Vandiver makes the point that it isn't clear whether the gods are bound by fate, or whether they agree not to interfere with fate. The very fact that Zeus considers saving Sarpedon suggests that perhaps the gods have the potential power to override fate but realize that it would be wrong to do so (is it really possible for the gods to exercise such self-control?). But it does seem to me ambiguous.

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "What struck me in reading that passage was how much the love of the gods seemed to be based on value received: this man made many sacrifices/ therefore we love him. So not, "We love Him because He first loved us." So, "We better sacrifice...so that maybe the gods will love us ... and maybe they will do beneficial things for us."
"

There does seem to be a symbiotic, or perhaps even co-parasitic, relationship there. The gods certainly want, and perhaps in some sense need, the sacrifices. The humans want the benefits that they perceive the sacrifices to bring.

[Silver]

Everyman wrote:The very fact that Zeus considers saving Sarpedon suggests that perhaps the gods have the potential power to override fate but realize that it would be wrong to do so (is it really possible for the gods to exercise such self-control?). But it does seem to me ambiguous. ..."

Zeus also proposes intervening to save Hector and consults with the others gods asking them if Hector should live, or if Achilles should be granted his long promisesed victory, and Athena replies to him thus:

Minerva answered: "Altar Fate? One long since mark'd for death, now take from death? Do thou but know he still shall run beneath our other censures."

If I am interpreting the words correctly it seems she is sayings that even if Zeus were to save Hector in this moment, he would still ultimately be fated to die, and it would simply happen by other means. So while Zeus could alter the course of fate in this particular instance, Hector will not completely escape his fate.

[Silver]

Patrice wrote: "Is that so very different from how we think? Isn't piety rewarded in our present religions? We might not burn lambs but we go to services, give to charity, obey.
"

This reminds of me of a quote I heard:

Spirituality is for those who seek understanding, religion is for those who seek reward.

I think that Christianity is a religion that is based upon the reward system. You get brownie points for good behavior. Gods love is dependant upon ones obedience to him and doing that which he requires of man. It is not unconditional.

[Laurel]

Silver wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Is that so very different from how we think? Isn't piety rewarded in our present religions? We might not burn lambs but we go to services, give to charity, obey.
"

This reminds..."

Not my Christianity.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: I think that Christianity is a religion that is based upon the reward system"."

Then you have an incorrect understanding of Christianity.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "Silver wrote: I think that Christianity is a religion that is based upon the reward system"."

Then you have an incorrect understanding of Christianity."

That is what Heaven and Hell is, reward and punishment. If you do what you are supposed to do and what is required of you to do you are rewarded for it. If you do not do that which is expected of you than you are punished. Christianly uses Heaven as a dangling carrot to inspire people to live according to their moral value system. A promise of being rewarded for acting correctly.

[toria (vikz writes)]

Silver wrote: "My apologies for my absence from the discussion. I had to deal with a combination of computer problems and personal issues and sort of fell out things for a while, but I have been much looking forw..."

I too apologies for my absence. I too found this book to be heartbreaking and touching. In fact, I believe that the last few books of this work are the best. They seem to touch on human emotion and loss more than the earlier books.

[[deleted user]]

Silver @ 27...sorry, should be 24 ...Lol, no, not going there.

You post a quote, a nice witty quote, that someone used to denigrate religion. Just because someone says something in no way makes it true.

Then you stated what you think of Christianity and a short "why" you think that. I merely pointed out that your "why" is incorrect, because that's not what Christianity is.

I felt a short anti-Christian wrongly "I think" statement should be countered with a short statement that your understanding of Christianity is incorrect. You could stop by any church and speak with the pastor or priest and he would exlain to you why you're incorrect.

But I seriously doubt you want to have such a conversation anyway.

And beyond that, I'm certainly not going engage in a serious discussion of Christianty in the middle of the Iliad discussion.

[Silver]

Adelle wrote: "Silver @ 27.Lol, no, not going there.

You post a quote, a nice witty quote, that someone used to denigrate religion. Just because someone says something in no way makes it true.

Then you state..."

We just have different perceptions of Christianity. As you said above I am not going to get into an elongated theological debate here.

[Thomas]

Those interested in the nexus between Homer and Christianity might find this book of interest: The Homeric Epics And The Gospel Of Mark. I haven't read it, and I'm sure it has its detractors, but it looks quite interesting.

[Laurel]

Thomas wrote: "Those interested in the nexus between Homer and Christianity might find this book of interest: The Homeric Epics And The Gospel Of Mark. I haven't read it, and I'm sure it has its det..."

That looks interesting, Thomas. Thanks.