Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts: Let's talk about The Iliad

[HarryT]

Time for another "important thing to understand when reading the Iliad" post .

This time we'll talk about the "aristeia". They are a frequent occurence in the Iliad, so it's as well to know what they're about.

An "aristeia" is (literally) a warrior's "finest moment" - it's a "set piece" in which a hero goes into battle, and slaughters innumerable enemies. There are many of them in the Iliad - the first we'll come across is that of the Greek hero Diomedes, in book V. (Trojan heroes get them too!).

An aristeia has a rigid structure, which is thought to be another consequence of the way that oral poetry was composed "on the fly"; the performer simply had to "tick off" in his mind each of the set elements in turn, and fill in the details. The structure of an aristeia is:

1. The hero puts on his armour.
2. We get a description of the magnificent appearance of the hero and his armour.
3. He makes a speech, exhorting his followers to great deeds.
4. He goes into battle.
5. He gets wounded (or suffers some other setback).
6. He is aided by the gods in some way.
7. He goes back into battle with renewed vigour.
8. We get a poetic simile comparing him to some natural phenomenon.
9. A graphic "fight to the death" scene.
10. He taunts and then kills (or vice versa) his opponent.

See if you can spot each of these elements in the various aristeias we'll come across. They are always there, and always in the same order.

The most famous aristeia in the Iliad is that of Achilles in book XXI - that's really the dramatic high of the whole epic.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Still strange choices. I wonder also if the ancient Greeks were really aware that mice/rats were vectors for spreading epidemics? If they really had any idea of the cause of disease or how it spread?

This is related but in Book 1 where Apollo is slaying all the Achaians with his arrows I took that to mean bringing a deadly plague among them. It is actually translated thus among one of the alternate translations other then Lattimore that I read that book. This actually left me wondering what sort of contagious disease would spread first among mules and hounds before spreading to humans? No doubt I am seeking to attach to much literal truth there.

Yes, it's mentioned in line 10 (νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὄρσε κακήν, ὀλέκοντο δὲ λαοί,) that he let loose a terrible sickness on the army and that the men were killed. I wonder about that sort of thing, too. The plague? There is a lot of literal truth to be found in stories in myth, I love thinking about that sort of thing.

[ctol]

Try this book it is a great source for studying medicine in Ancient Greece. Well worth a look. It came in handy for a paper I wrote on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Medicine...6356213&sr=8-1

Originally Posted by HarryT

Time for another "important thing to understand when reading the Iliad" post .

This time we'll talk about the "aristeia". They are a frequent occurence in the Iliad, so it's as well to know what they're about.

An "aristeia" is (literally) a warrior's "finest moment" - it's a "set piece" in which a hero goes into battle, and slaughters innumerable enemies. There are many of them in the Iliad - the first we'll come across is that of the Greek hero Diomedes, in book V. (Trojan heroes get them too!).

An aristeia has a rigid structure, which is thought to be another consequence of the way that oral poetry was composed "on the fly"; the performer simply had to "tick off" in his mind each of the set elements in turn, and fill in the details. The structure of an aristeia is:

1. The hero puts on his armour.
2. We get a description of the magnificent appearance of the hero and his armour.
3. He makes a speech, exhorting his followers to great deeds.
4. He goes into battle.
5. He gets wounded (or suffers some other setback).
6. He is aided by the gods in some way.
7. He goes back into battle with renewed vigour.
8. We get a poetic simile comparing him to some natural phenomenon.
9. A graphic "fight to the death" scene.
10. He taunts and then kills (or vice versa) his opponent.

See if you can spot each of these elements in the various aristeias we'll come across. They are always there, and always in the same order.

The most famous aristeia in the Iliad is that of Achilles in book XXI - that's really the dramatic high of the whole epic.

Thanks for the additional tip about the “aristeia.” I went back and listened to Book V (LibriVox recording of Samuel Butler translation) and sure enough.

One thing that I have noticed is the Gods have great power to interfere in the war helping out one side or the other. I have just completed reading Books 8 & 9 where Zeus, keeping his promise to Thetis to punish Agamemnon for his treatment of Achilleus, is assisting the Trojans to the point of impending total destruction of the Achaians. This incites Hera and Athena to want to intercede on behalf of the Achaians, but Zeus warns them off from this. However, it seems that even the most powerful of gods is, as are all gods and men, subject to what fate has decreed. I have read a number of instances where what fate, or the fates, having decreed being unalterable even by the gods. Odysseus at one point in battle wonders if he should engage Hektor in combat or instead just less important Trojans and Athene tells Odysseus that he is not fated to defeat Hektor. Achilleus knows that if he returns to battle the Trojans that he fated to die there at a young age. Even Hektor at one point seems to say that he knows that Troy is fated to be defeated and destroyed. From what I recall learning about Greek mythology regarding the various gods the Fates are often portrayed as gods, or at least as some supernatural beings that rule the future. Accurate and do the Fates supersede Zeus?

What I previously knew about Achilleus was limited to the story of his being made invulnerable by being dipped in the river Styx as an infant except for one heel by which his mother held him, a story I know know came long after the Iliad. Having now read through Book 9 though it seems that Homer portrayed Achilleus openly as either gay or bisexual? It seems clearest when Agamemnon, in order to make amends to Achilleus, offers him not only one of Agamemnon's daughters, but also his son Orestes. Also how the relationship between Achilleus and his “beloved companion” Patroklos. I known that the ancient Greeks were very open to the idea of men being sexually attracted to and engaging sex with both men and women. So, at least according to the Iliad, was Achilleus always considered bisexual?

Originally Posted by issybird

Question for those following this thread:

How do we feel about six books a week? Is it about right? Should we cut back a bit while people catch up? Comments, please, and then we'll figure out the goal for next week.

I am very excited by what a great read this has become. I'll post some talking points later but I hardly feel they're necessary, given the comments so far.

Have we come to a consensus about the next target date and what Book to have completed by then? I am just interested in staying roughly on the correct pace.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I known that the ancient Greeks were very open to the idea of men being sexually attracted to and engaging sex with both men and women. So, at least according to the Iliad, was Achilleus always considered bisexual?

The ancient authors thought not. Eg, if you read Xenophon's "Symposium" (not to be confused with the better-known "Symposium" written by Plato), you'll find a strong argument against their relationship being a sexual one. Alexander the Great, though, modelled his own relationship with Hephaestion on that between Achilles and Patroclus, and that certainly was a sexual relationship.

In Greek culture it was widely considered that the only true love that could exist was between men - especially warriors. Wives were for having children with, and mistresses were for fun, but true love could only exist between men. That's the kind of love that Achilles and Patroclus had, and it had nothing to do with sex. Read Plato's symposium for some excellent discussions on the subject.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Having now read through Book 9 though it seems that Homer portrayed Achilleus openly as either gay or bisexual? It seems clearest when Agamemnon, in order to make amends to Achilleus, offers him not only one of Agamemnon's daughters, but also his son Orestes.

Heh, it's funny but here's another place where I interpreted it differently than you. I'm not reading any notes (I will read those after I'm done). Let me say that I too see a lot of bisexual context in the Iliad, and when I first read that line, I thought the exact same thing as you.

I had to re-read it though, not because I was surprised at the bisexual context, but that a king would give his son a noble prince away in that manner. So I read it again:

I will honour him with Orestes my growing son, who is brought up there in abundant luxury.

And I took it to mean that he will honour Achilleus the same as he honours his son, since if Achilleus takes one of his daughters for a bride he will also be his son, so the "with" would mean he would honour them together as sons of his.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Heh, it's funny but here's another place where I interpreted it differently than you. I'm not reading any notes (I will read those after I'm done). Let me say that I too see a lot of bisexual context in the Iliad, and when I first read that line, I thought the exact same thing as you.

I had to re-read it though, not because I was surprised at the bisexual context, but that a king would give his son a noble prince away in that manner. So I read it again:



And I took it to mean that he will honour Achilleus the same as he honours his son, since if Achilleus takes one of his daughters for a bride he will also be his son, so the "with" would mean he would honour them together as sons of his.

I just snuck a look at the Greek text:

τίσω δέ μιν ἶσον Ὀρέστῃ

Your interpretation is correct, he will honour Achilles the same as he honours his son, Orestes.

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Heh, it's funny but here's another place where I interpreted it differently than you. I'm not reading any notes (I will read those after I'm done). Let me say that I too see a lot of bisexual context in the Iliad, and when I first read that line, I thought the exact same thing as you.

I had to re-read it though, not because I was surprised at the bisexual context, but that a king would give his son a noble prince away in that manner. So I read it again:



And I took it to mean that he will honour Achilleus the same as he honours his son, since if Achilleus takes one of his daughters for a bride he will also be his son, so the "with" would mean he would honour them together as sons of his.

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

I just snuck a look at the Greek text:

τίσω δέ μιν ἶσον Ὀρέστῃ

Your interpretation is correct, he will honour Achilles the same as he honours his son, Orestes.

Thanks for that. I think what led me to think that Agamemnon might have been actually offering up Orestes to Achilleus was it was next to the offer of one of Agamemnon's daughters. Actual quote from the Lattimore translation:

And if we come back to Achian Argos, pride of the tilled land, he may be my son in law; I will honour him with Orestes my growing son, who is brought up there in abundant luxury.

I also have a copy ordered through my library of one of the most recent translations by Stephen Mitchell and this is rendered in that as:

And if we ever reach Argos, I promise to make him my son-in-law and treat him with all the honor I give to my own beloved boy, young Orestes, who is growing up there amid great abundance.

The Mitchell version makes it completely clear.

The Lattimore translation of the reference that most struck me in Book 9 about the relation ship between Achilleus and Patroklos was:

So he spoke, and Patroklos obeyed his beloved companion, . . .

In the Mitchell translation this becomes:

Patroclus did what his dear companion had asked for.

Now I can see that in 1951 when Lattimore published his translation “beloved companion” probably did not have the heavy sexual conotation it does today. However, the Mitchell translation was published in 2011 and even dear companion sounds a little sexual.

[Namekuseijin]

People were certainly much merrier and gay back then...

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

The Lattimore translation of the reference that most struck me in Book 9 about the relation ship between Achilleus and Patroklos was:

In the Mitchell translation this becomes:

Now I can see that in 1951 when Lattimore published his translation “beloved companion” probably did not have the heavy sexual conotation it does today. However, the Mitchell translation was published in 2011 and even dear companion sounds a little sexual.

You bring up something I've also been thinking about while reading. I checked some gay-ish passages against other online versions and some versions seem to still suggest a possible sexual dimension while others seem to take pains to make any relations between men seem completely and utterly platonic.

What I've personally read into this, and obviously this is my own opinion based off only the little outside information I've read and comparing translations, but what I read into this is that some translators I think are purposely taking out the possible sexual element/extra-close bond and almost sort of censoring it.

From what I can tell, we don't really know for certain what Homer meant. We know that the Greeks were much more open to a form of bisexuality but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what Homer meant. While on the other hand, I don't think there's any concrete evidence that Homer only ever meant platonic friendship as some translators take pains to put it.

But again, I am not a scholar on the subject. At the moment I lean towards thinking that Homer may have been referring to a possible sexual element (that would've seemed normal in their culture), or not even referring to a sexual element exactly but simply alluding to a very close and strong friendship and love bond between men that happened to include sex (i.e. to us we first think sex but to them they may have first thought something more along the lines of "best-loved friend for life" sort of thing). These are just my opinions thus far though and additional info could sway them!

[ctol]

If you have access to his book Greek Homosexuality by Kenneth J. Dover, the info on the following pages might give you more food for thought on the exact nature of the relationship that exists between Achilles and Patroklos. This book is still one of the best ones on the subject. Be advised these page numbers are for the 1978 Vintage Books edition. If you want to obtain a used copy it is available from Amazon at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used

See these pages: 41, 53, 70, 130, 197, 199

[issybird]

It's Monday again and we're halfway through. I apolgize for any confusion about the schedule; I had a rough week last week filled with crises which while minor were of the time-consuming, PITA type.

But let me grate a little more goat cheese into my wine and see where we are. It's been a battle-heavy series of books, as fortune or the gods influence the ebb and flow, favoring Greeks or Trojans. Achilles is still sulking and has turned down Agamemnon's generous offer of reparation, but he's at least stirred to the point where he sends Patroclus as envoy to check on Machaon. Agamemnon has his aristeia and is wounded. As book twelve ends, the Achaeans are in trouble and Hector is in the ascendant, but is he getting reckless? Perhaps he should listen to Polydamas?

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by issybird

But let me grate a little more goat cheese into my wine and see where we are.

Yes! Where did that come from anyway? All the other food seems good or at least interesting, then that pops up. Wine with grated goat's cheese and barley, and then they drink it and it refreshes them! Blech.

Does anyone know anything about this? I googled for a second and didn't find anything. I know there are many cultures with many different kinds of food, but this just sounds strange when the other food mentioned so far seemed somewhat appetising. I just can't imagine drinking wine with grated goat cheese and barley in it and finding it appetising....

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Yes! Where did that come from anyway? All the other food seems good or at least interesting, then that pops up. Wine with grated goat's cheese and barley, and then they drink it and it refreshes them! Blech.

Does anyone know anything about this? I googled for a second and didn't find anything. I know there are many cultures with many different kinds of food, but this just sounds strange when the other food mentioned so far seemed somewhat appetising. I just can't imagine drinking wine with grated goat cheese and barley in it and finding it appetising....

Yes that mixture does sound awful. Now barley cooked to make it digestible (barley soup) topped with goats cheese and a glass of wine on the side I can see. Oh, well as one of my cousins used to say as he stirred everything on his plate into one pile of mush: "It all ends up mixed together anyway."