some notes on Book one of Iliad

Marble bust of Homer: a Roman copy of a Hellenistic statue that is lost.
Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here.. Original uploader was JW1805 at en.wikipedia, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2171360

Newbies to the class: Brightspace is used only for submission of written material and grading. There is an announcement on Brightspace that has the address of this website, which is the course website. We will use this website for the syllabus, notes, and many other things. We will also use teams for discussion and for those who are forced to go remote for a time.

Today, the plan is to talk about Iliad 1: please write down a question or an observation you have about Iliad 1 NOW.

By William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70926

Achilles tending the wounded Patroclus
(Attic red-figure kylix, c. 500 BC)
By Sosias (potter, signed). Painting attributed to the Sosias Painter (name piece for Beazley, overriding attribution) or the Kleophrades Painter (Robertson) or Euthymides (Ohly-Dumm) - User:Bibi Saint-Pol, own work, 2008, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3574713

Some notes about Iliad 1

As the class goes on, I will stop doing this sort of commentary, but for now, I want to concentrate on the text. Soon, we'll learn more about orality, what archaeology can offer us, Homeric ethics, etc.

Several people asked in their daily comment last time about how to read and study in this class. Here's a suggestion. In your life, you may read some of these texts only in this class, and if you are too rushed for time, you will only read them once (not a good idea) even in this class. Here's what I would tell you: find a couple things you are interested in early on, and make notes in the text (underlining, high-lighting, marginal comments) and keep lists of passages that touch on those issues. Maybe you want to keep a running summary of the plot and your thoughts about that! A great idea and so much better than Sparknotes, etc. because you made it, which means you were actively learning. That is what knowing and understanding often is: you yourself finding a thread, following it, identifying where it appears, thinking about it, and coming up with ideas about it, then repeating all that to make sure your idea stands up. You can do this and should start keeping a few lists or running commentaries NOW. This is a skill, a technique, that can help you in all sorts of ways in all sorts of places (in any job, in doing your taxes, in hobbies, etc.). It's kind of an alternative/parallel to keeping a diary.

I mistakenly told you that Wilson's translation kept the original Greek line numbering: it is clearly not quite straightforwardly true of her Iliad. Translating involves making an infinite number of choices, some wittingly, some unwittingly. So there are two sets of line numbers in Wilson's text: the ones on the right in black and the ones on the let in a grayscale shade: the grayscale numbers are the lines of the Greek text!). That is a very good solution to a translator's problem, and one you will not find as well done in other texts.

You should follow along with the English (on screen or in your book) and note where you cannot find what I am talking about at the right line number: I will be talking about the Greek text's line numbers and using mostly my own much more literal translations.

Line 1

Sing! the whole of Iliad and Odyssey is a song! to be performed! to the Kithara! (a stringed instrument)
goddess: the 'goddess' is the muse, the source of poetic inspiration, and hence, the singer, thru the bard! The Greeks take this much much more literally and seriously than I, an atheist in a largely monotheistic and pluralistic society.
Peleus' son: ancestry determines nobility: if you don't have noble ancestry, YOU ARE NOT NOBLE

it is also sufficient for nobility: you can be a dirty rotten scoundrel, but if you have noble ancestry, YOU ARE THEREFORE NOBLE, a 'hero.'

wealth can play a similar role
in the US, we have a very strong mythology that rejects 'blood' as a determiner of worth and quality, but it is not strong enough: blood, actually DNA, still matters a great deal. We now call this a type of privilege.

A 5th c. red-figure vase painting in the Munich Antikensammulung, attributed to Douris

Achilles: the best fighter in the war, the greatest Achaian warrior

Lines 1-15 Agamemnon is 'Atreus' son' and Apollo is 'Son of Zeus and Leto': sometimes they have other epithets.

epithets are monikers, ways to refer to people. Sometimes they accompany the name, as in "swift-footed Achilles" or "rosy-fingered Dawn" (the rising sun): they are tremendously frequent in the epics.
They are a key feature of oral poetry and one of the ways the Milman Parry and Albert Lord and others confirmed that these epics are in fact oral poems, not written poems.
Wilson chose to 'translate' these names as Agamemnon and Apollo: the Greek has only 'Atreus' son' and 'Son of Zeus and Leto': what difference does that make?

Line 2

Achaians: one of three names for "the Greeks": "Greeks" is NOT one of those three: "Greeks" is a later name: the three names are "Achaians" (frequently spelled Achaeans: Achaea is a land in the northern Peloponnese), "Argives" (from Argos, a city on the Peloponnese), and "Danaans."

Another word for Greeks, "Hellenes," which is the adjective form of what has become the modern name of Greece, Hellas, is used ONCE in Iliad.!
The Hittite name Ahhiyawa, which in Hittite refers to a land to the west of the Hittite empire, may refer to historical Mycenaeans: we have this name on a few Hittite clay tablets in cuneiform script.
Wilson chose to translate the 'Achaeans' as Greeks: what difference does that make: it gives the impression that there was a notion of "Greece" as a nation that is continuous with Greece the nation: there is, but it is more complex than that.

Line 3

Hades: the underworld god as well as his realm: Hades is Zeus' brother. Zeus' other brother is Poseidon, god of the sea.

Line 7

'Atreus' son the lord of men: Wilson says Agamemnon: note that his lineage is enough to identify him: also note that "lord of men" is an epithet
many people are identified merely by their parentage in Homer

LIne 9-... Why Achilles is mad
Line 9-11

Apollo, a significant Olympian god (there were 12 Olympians), whose human priest is Chryses.

'Atreus' two sons': we have met Agamemnon, but Atreus' other son is Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother, a fellow king, and Helen's husband, the one whose wife went to Troy with Paris/Alexander and thus set off the chain of events that led to war

14 and 21

Apollo has an epithet "who strikes from afar": he is often depicted with a bow. The bow is literal, but also figurative (he can hit them with a plague).

kidnapping and ransom seems to have been a normal thing, not unusual, a fine acceptable way for a hero to go out and make a living (if you are a noble male, or among the underlings of a noble male, of course): probably reflects historical reality in Archaic and earlier Greece: think of "going viking."
when you go out raiding or on campaign, there is always a concern about whether you will return home, and whether you will return with plunder (glory and honor) or not

the Odyssey is all about one man's return home. Greek for return is nostos and hence we have the English word 'nostalgia' (pain/desire to return)

"All the rest of the Achaians kept quiet": like a Hollywood movie, there are only a few speaking roles in Iliad, but many crowd scenes
pay attention to the crowd (perhaps make a list, or start underlining and put a symbol in the margin), i.e. the whole army: the fighting is actually as much about large army movements as individual combat, but it doesn't appear that way most of the time at first glance

note that the crowd, the army, large groups, are only present in short lines: the epic spends no time on them, but they are there.

30's

the god's staff and ribbons: symbols of the god, and humans are supposed to respect them
note that this sort of tradition is what functions as the "law" of the Iliad: there is NO written law: only traditions, strong ones.

there are traditions about how to treat a messenger, or a traveling stranger, or a host, etc.
Paris violated such a tradition by taking Helen with him (note that in the epic, her role is often elided, not really explained: did she run, was she seduced, or did she seduce, was she taken? etc.).

30's

Chryseis: what is she (or any woman in general) good for?

from what Agamemnon says here, working a loom and being in bed with a man
don't underestimate the loom: it took hundreds of hours of work to make each article of clothing: years to make a sail: we take for granted the processing, the spinning, the weaving, and the sewing, because we have machines. This was incredibly important and sophisticated work. Computers in fact have their origin in weaving: it's that complex and technical.
Perhaps taking the women (the men were killed mostly, apparently) really is as much about labor as it is about anything.
as for sex, relationships that involve it, sexuality, gender issues, etc., pay attention to them: they are not discussed much in the epics, never explicitly, but they are incredibly important and interesting, and the occasional line adds to the picture: if you are interested, start keeping a list now, as you read, of passages the mention such things.

39 ff

Chryses calls down the wrath of Apollo, whose arrows are a plague, a sickness, in the Achaian camp. Note the prayer formula: "If every I did something for you, god, now do something for me": it is called "do ut des" (Latin for "I give so you give") and is a very strong and widespread religious idea: prayer and religion as bargaining with a higher power:

it is also an extremely simplistic religious formula rejected and ridiculous from more sophisticated religious points of view. But it works, apparently, in this epic world. Most all of the rituals and sacrifices and prayers in the epic word are do ut des

in fact, most of the religion we hear about on a regular basis, sacrifice, votive offerings, in historical Greece is still do ut des
note that there was, as far as we can tell, no good medical knowledge whatsoever, no scientific method, no controlled trials, etc.: the physical basis for contagion, cleanliness, medicine, all were utterly misunderstood. Nonetheless there were 'doctors' (Machaon is the doctor on the Greek side, but he is not mentioned until much later in the Iliad) and they did more good than harm.

53 (73 in Wilson)

nine days: note the occasional quick mention of time passing: if you add up all the time that is reported as part of the actual action of Iliad (not flashbacks or recountings of the past, or flash forwards or references to what will happen), it is about 50 days! If you are interested, keep a list as you read.

Hera inspires Achilles to call an assembly: note that Achilles' thought is caused by Hera! Gods not only interact with humans as actors: they also inspire humans' thoughts! or maybe such things are just attributed to the gods?
Hera has pity on the Achaians: does that mean she is on their side? Here she is helping them, certainly. Watch for things like this: this is the evidence for whose side a god is on and why. Evidence is important! keep a list of who's on which side?
So far, Hera helps the Achaians and Apollo helps Chryses against the Achaians.
Note that Athena will soon descend and hold back Achilles, physically and in person, appearing to him alone: gods work in various ways. What are they? Personified motivations? Aspects of one's personality (Athena is wisdom, Aphrodite is lust, etc.?)

Achilles apparently knows that Apollo is causing the plague: how does he know?

because Apollo's sphere of power includes such things as plagues, and so it must he Apollo: that is background cultural knowledge that the audience would have. You'll slowly build your own such knowledge: it is a small part of why re-reading is so rewarding.
what we know is that Achilles says the plague is caused by Apollo: can we ask, does Achilles have his own not so obvious agenda? why might Achilles use Apollo as a rhetorical pawn in his own agenda?

Why shouldn't we ask that? It depends on how you think Homer should be interpreted: is the text driven by a straightforward reliable narrator or does he work with not-quite said motivations? Do the characters shoot straight or can we attribute motives and machinations to them?

Maybe what we learn in lines 75-85 explains it: maybe Achilles talked to Kalchas and they have this all planned out beforehand as a strategic move relative to Agamemnon. So it's the politics of the Achaean army:

How would we support that interpretation? Because Achilles mentions it here before Kalchas says it! He has knowledge of what Kalchas is going to say: how if not by having talked to him?

75-85

Kalchas, a seer and priest of Apollo who watches birds in flight and thus predicts the future, asks Achilles to protect him, because what he will reveal (that Agamemnon's actions are why Apollo has rained this plague down upon the Achaians) will anger Agamemnon

was this all planned out beforehand as some sort of manipulative rhetoric to get the Achaians to go home?
or to damage Agamemnon's reputation and status?
or is Achilles wanting to usurp Agamemnon's role as leader?
are we even right to think of such things? the poet, after all, gives us little direct explicit evidence that that is the case!
I think it is a good idea to pursue all interpretations, with certain warnings and with our eyes wide open as to what we are doing.

but not as if any one interpretation is the best or the only way to read the text

I am honestly not suggesting that such an interpretation is right or wrong, but merely trying to point out that if you engage in such an interpretation, the nature of your evidence becomes indirect. If your interpretation is coherent and interesting, I think it is a good one, even if it contradicts other viable interpretations. Literature is not necessarily unambiguous or free from contradiction, and often more than one interpretation is possible and that can help make the literature stand the test of time, because that can make it interesting and about important issues. It can also make it relevant in very different ways in different times.
Also, maybe by doing this, we ourselves are re-interpreting the myth behind the epic and re-formulating it to suit our own psychology and interests: nothing wrong with that. But do it with your eyes wide open as to what you are doing.

We can pooh-pooh divination, and I do, but in antiquity, it was held to be a science, an organized field of expertise, and to have roots in divine placement of clues and signs in the world. Thus it can tell us what an intellectual skill, a science, looked like to them at the time.

think about the idea that signs are all around us, about human lives, in the actions of birds, the entrails of animals, etc.
think about how that world would work, if it were really true: how would those signs get there? why would they be there? how would/could interpreting them be clear and unambiguous?
wow: now go write a brilliant piece of fiction that incorporates the system you have built up in answer to the previous two bullet points: seriously, it could be a wonderful thing!

or create a game with mechanics that call on that world!

He says Agamemnon has to give the woman Chryseis back. Note that 9 years before this time, Kalchas told Agamemnon he had to sacrifice Iphigenia, Agamemnon's daughter, in order to get fair winds to get to Troy, and Iphigenia was sacrificed! That's part of why Ag. is so bitter at him. BUT THAT IS BARELY ALLUDED TO HERE; the audience would have been keenly aware of it in ancient Greece. Is that a good reason to think that Homer's text works with a subtext that the audience would have been aware of and that the singer knew the audience would have been aware of? Yes it is.

101-120

Agamemnon's speech

he rails against Kalchas, because Kalchas has never once said anything that Agamemnon liked (remember Iphigeneia)! Does this mean Kalchas is plotting and machinating against Agamemnon? or does it simply mean that in fact Agamemnon is annoyed with Kalchas, because Kalchas is merely reporting the fact that Agamemnon's actions are the root of the problem: giving Chryseis back to her father Chryses, this time without a ransom, will solve the problem? Different interpretations.
Agamemnon, interestingly, likes Chryseis, his plunder, more than his own wife!!! (Wilson line 152) If you know later events (and the audience does), you know that Agamemnon will bring home another woman war captive, Cassandra, and that Agamemnon's wife Clytaemnestra, will kill Agamemnon partly because he prefers others to her and partly because he sacrificed their daughter Iphigeneia. Soap-oper-epic!

But also, it tells you about norms of the time. Are there 'functional analogues' to all these things in modern times? Women as acquisitions? Trading women? Sacrificing daughters? Hiding behind lawyers and policy? Maybe not straightforwardly equivalent, but maybe not so entirely different in essence?

The epics, and myth in general, and literature in general, is full of "echoes" and "parallels": keep a list of them?

Why does Agamemnon suggest that he needs another prize? (Wilson ~158) does he know that they are machinating against him and so is he making a counter-move directly against Achilles and his co-machinators? or is he simply pointing out that the heroic code requires that he have honor, that Chryseis IS honor, and so if he loses her, he should get another honor?

Note, if you have not already, that Chryseis' point of view is not related. She is spoil of war. Spoils are part of the heroic code. Once in a while Homer seems to question it, but is that real questioning or merely dramatic coloring? The playwright Euripides will certainly question it when we get to his works.
Note, for instance that much later, when we hear about Achilles' own spoil of war, the woman Bryseis, that when they came to take her "she went unwillingly": that's all that is said, but why say that she went 'unwillingly'? What does it mean? What does it tell you?

125 in Achilles' speech: (Wilson 160's)

distribution of spoils: a very important part of the heroic code: you raid and take spoils, then divide them. The spoils ARE your honor, just as your money IS your worth according to many today.

Achilles suggests a perhaps reasonable alternative: there are no unclaimed honors lying around for Agamemnon, so he should get a promissory note: 3-4 times the value of Chryseis next time there is a distribution
seems reasonable, and might undermine the interpretation that holds that there are undercurrents here of machinations and power-maneuvers. Maybe those who interpret it that way are simply too blinded by their own world and their own world view to understand the epic one? Maybe promises like that are worth nowhere near as much to him as a woman in his tent. Hmmm.
Note the line 'We have looted from the neighboring towns' which Lombardo translates as "Every town in the area has been sacked": how do you think you supply your army when you are attacking a town far across the sea for 9 years? This has been one non-stop years-long plunderation of everywhere that was not an ally.

130-150's

Agamemnon's speech
He comes across as a selfish and bad leader, right? Is he?
The scene seems to me like a pack of wolves who have a carcass: a bird comes along and flies off with one's choice morsel from the carcass, so he goes over to another wolf and tries to take its morsel.
And Agamemnon is like a child who does not understand delayed gratification.
Is that fair? Is it an inaccurate representation of how things like international relations work, for instance?
Agamemnon is just wielding supreme power over his army and not brooking protest. It's military, after all. It's not diplomacy or subtle court politics.
But Agamemnon agrees to give back Chryseis.

155-ish

Achilles' speech
WOW!!!!
Truth to power? or maybe 'aspirant to greater power to power' or maybe "really skilled underling to the person with power" or maybe 'tragically trapped human raging against the trap that is his life?'
Achilles' analysis of the situation is intense! and seems sensible.
and he is going to abandon the allied host.
Note the mini-list of other leaders: lists are frequent. How would that help an oral poet?

183-ish

Agamemnon's reply
Lombardo's translation, excerpted "Go ahead and desert...If you're all that strong, it's just a gift from some god...I couldn't care less about you...you will see just how much Stronger I am than you, and the next person will wince At the thought of opposing me as an equal"
Agamemnon's power relies on being maintained, on appearances
He insults physical strength and talks instead of power.

Physical strength and power were much more closely linked in antiquity, but still they were entirely different.

Note how some highly intelligent, thoughtful, and capable leader in our nation asked Pete Hegseth how many pushups he could do in the hearings yesterday!

190's to 210's

Athena, sent by Hera, persuades Achilles not to (try to) kill Agamemnon.
Only he can see her!
Achilles' reason for listening to and obeying Athena? "Obey the gods and they hear you when you pray."! that and the promise of 4-fold spoils (i.e. Achilles knows about delayed gratification)
This is great evidence for any argument about what the gods are: if you are interested in such things, keep a list of such passages with notes.

235-ish ff.

Achilles' speech back to Thetis
the scepter: symbol of power: pay attention to the things, like forks and scepters and cups: then when it comes to archaeology, look for them!
note that Achilles says that Agamemnon never actually enters battle himself! remember I said pay attention to the crowd: even though the Iliad often seems like mostly one-on-one combat, that is just like in Braveheart, when Mel Gibson seems like the only warrior the camera pays attention to, but really the battle is a confrontation of two masses of men.

It seems like a narrative ploy as much as a reflection of any possible 'reality' of how fighting occurred.

note too how Achilles insults the Achaian rank and file as "not real men"

260's

Nestor
the prototypical wise old man: from a previous generation, wise of counsel.

Note that he fought alongside Theseus, and so he is of Heracles' generation (Heracles too sacked Troy, and that is mentioned in Iliad at 7.451, 20.145 and 21.442!)

He seems to be a foil for Agamemnon and Achilles' hotheadedness, a wise man who is not heeded.

he holds up the right of a scepter holding king over all others.

320's

first appearances of Patroclus and Odysseus
Patroclus is Achilles' best friend, second in command

many a person ships them or says he actually is Achilles' lover (but Homer never actually says that: Aeschylus will put them together as lovers, but that tragedy has not survived down to our time)

Odysseus is known as wily and tricky, good at speaking: he is king of Ithaca, an island on the other side of Greece toward Italy.

330's Agamemnon sends his minions Talthybius and Eurybates to take Briseis from Achilles

Achilles is gracious to them: there is a tradition that heralds are respected and protected

remember, that is the closest we get to 'law' in the epics

Briseis "goes unwillingly": probably meant to glorify Achilles, but still, interesting that she is given some personhood and agency, minimal as it is.

360's

Achilles calls on his mother Thetis, a sea goddess, who laments that her son Achilles will have such a short life, that of a fighter.

this theme of a short life of glory versus what? the boring life of a peaceful noble: that is "Achilles' choice" and it has a lot to do with the heroic code

She agrees to intercede with Zeus for Achilles, but says that Zeus and the other gods have gone to Ethiopia for feastings and won't be back for 12 days.

note what that does for the narrative: Zeus is out of cell range, and so he is there, in our minds, perhaps going to do something important, but on hold. A kind of CPD.

378ff

Achilles repeats the whole story up to now in a shortened version: what does that do for the oral poet? the aural audience?
note that Cilician Thebes is where Chryseis was captured by Achilles. There are several places called Thebes: this one is not well known. It's among the dozens of place names mentioned in the Iliad. You can't learn them all. Know the most important, the ones frequently mentioned.

Achilles laments for the loss of Briseis: what does that mean? is he lamenting his loss of honor, or does he have feelings for her?
the two are not incompatible: he could do both. But the Greek, and the English, doesn't make it clear, but maybe it tilts toward his honor when the narrator says she was "taken by force from him against his will": back at 390-92, where Achilles talks about it, is he lamenting that it was forced or that he lost her?
It might be important for an interpretation of women's roles and treatment.

445ff

Odysseus puts in at Chryse and there is a type scene: a feast.
There are many and varied type scenes in these epics: a 'type scene' is a scene that occur in various guises repeatedly. They are like old friends after a while.

remember, no refrigeration: you sacrifice (slaughter) and you have to eat it soon or preserve it somehow.
the division of the sacrifice is parallel to the division of spoils from battle: it is done according to some principle of fairness that takes social position heavily into account.

12 days pass
the gods return from feasting on Ethiopian sacrifice

490's ff.

Thetis goes to Zeus to ask him to do Achilles a favor.
note that she invokes the formula "if ever before I have done something for you, do this now for me": do ut des a prayer formula we've seen before: a reciprocal exchange idea of relations with gods: also applies to human relations.
we learn that perhaps the "will of Zeus" at the beginning of the book was NOT just fate: it was what Zeus decided himself based on doing a favor for Achilles (the favor is to let the Achaians lose for a while until they have to beg Achilles to come back and thus do him honor)
we also learn that at least according to Hera, Zeus has favored the Trojans in the past: he seems here like by far the most powerful god among powerful gods, not a wise and just all-powerful ruler here.

530's ff

meeting of gods: another type scene (the messenger scene with Talthybius and Eurybates going to Achilles was another type scene: any scene that follows a fairly predictable pattern that is repeated a few times is a type scene.
note first that Hera accuses Zeus of secret counsels and plots: that perhaps gives us permission ourselves in our own interpretation to think that maybe some of what is happening has hidden motives that we are justified in speculating about (e.g. that Achilles and Kalchas has planned out the earlier confrontation with Agamemnon, even if it might not have gone as planned).
Hephaestus provides a little comic relief, but also makes Olympus seem like an abusive, dysfunctional human household/village.