Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Homer, The Iliad

It is both a pleasure and a shock to return to Greece by means of Homer. From the opening lines celebrating and mourning Achilles' wrath, to the closing lament over the Breaker of Horses, I was fully spellbound. Homer's depiction of heroic virtue is unforgettable, and Achilles, Hector, Diomedes, Agamemnon (specifically not Odysseus) and Aias are the standards against which subsequent heroes shall be judged. There is beauty, courage, grace, and honor amongst them which is alien, yet not unattractive (though I remember how much The Iliad shocked me as a freshman) to a modern. Like my experience with the Waldstein Sonata, I grew to love The Iliad and to revel with the heroes in the pride of their strength.

The problem of honor and glory is what concerns me most in the poem, and how they unfold the magnificent tragedy. Honor and glory seem to be related to one's own and the other; honor is given a man by other men, and it can be easily stripped away, as Agamemnon effortlessly shames Achilles; but once taken, it is unclear whether or not it may be returned, though the offender may wish it so. On the other hand, glory, or fame, κλέος - literally, a report - though it requires the efforts of others and possibly would be unsatisfying without it, does not admit of this weakness, far more dependent on the feats of the individual. Thus the wrath of Achilles is spread about the four winds and all men sing his songs, and none can strip him of his great deeds. In this light Nestor refutes Diomedes, who claims he will lose glory by fleeing Hector. Even more, it seems Achilles might make a transition from honor-loving to glory-seeking midway through the Iliad when Agamemnon's envoy comes upon him singing and delighting his heart with the songs of the great men from the past. Since it is possible to be dishonored by a lesser man (though I hardly dare to assert even this; for, losses of faith notwithstanding, Agamemnon's conduct in battle is irreproachable, and Homer's depiction of the troubled shepherd of the people is among the most moving of passages), what is a hero to do? How to hold honor, based on the words or praises of men (which are but wind, right?) and glory, based on deeds? Do the two come together as one more than I am allowing here?

Since all the heroes fight for honor and glory (Hector is emphatically not an exception, read carefully Andromache's plea and his response and you might be convinced it does not properly address her request), there are no villains, strictly speaking, though I vastly prefer the Achaian heroes, and Diomedes in particular (what a lion!), to anything Ilion has to offer. Further, though frequent mention is made of fate, it seems Zeus is not subject to fate at all, but that fate is merely Zeus' will, for Hera all but says that in book sixteen, and among the first lines of the Iliad is "the will of Zeus was accomplished", and when Zeus bows his head in assent to a thing, nothing may gainsay it. Unrelated and probably trivial, but interesting, is the discovery that Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are all equals, give or take, though the Furies tend to side with Zeus, for he is the eldest.

There is much to say about the poem, and these scattered reflections hardly do it justice. Buried beneath the beauty, honor, and glory of noble battle is harsh, unromantic bloodshed and a deep sadness about the nature of things. I am not sure how friendship figures in The Iliad, nor to what extent the vivid pictures of death and violence change the beautiful picture of heroic virtue, though I am not inclined to say Homer is attacking that virtue in every line. Plenty of open questions for next time.

"Of the creatures that crawl the earth, man is the most miserable of all."