To further on that, I think it's pretty important to note that it was lust (love? probs not) over Helen that started the war, in combination with Menelaus' hurt honour at having her taken away. It shows that love and war are two sides of the same coin so to speak - opposite but intrinsically linked. The whole 'love and war' thing is a lot more prominent in book III - Paris is symbolic of this lust while he doesn't care at all for the war - he's not really upset that he lost against Menelaus, he's upset that Helen's dissing him about it. Then without much of a pause he goes and bangs Helen in a really fancy bed or something. In contrast, there's Menelaus (symbolic of war - "the lion", "like a wild beast", "battle-hungry" - also he's a Spartan) who's less interested in Helen herself and more interested in what she represents - his lost honour, a great prize (I've heard she's pretty attractive) and the suffering of his people. Taking Helen back shows everyone that he should be respected (eg. "guys don't take my things or I'll go to war with you for 10 years and destroy you in single combat k ty") and that he's a worthy king (and kings are pretty central to a lot of the values represented in the Iliad).
I think you might be thinking of beauty, which is in part, a manifestation of love (weirdly enough. let's be honest, we all objectify because we're horrible things). From reading the Iliad, I don't even think Homer even considers love as a thing, but rather that infatuation is like a hidden 'evil' and is often portrayed as being deceitful and highly destructive as it is manifested in the concubines of Achilles and Agamemnon, and also Helen, who in the widely accepted account would even say that it was caused by the goddess, Aphrodite, who made Helen fall in love with Paris. This means that rather than as freewill, gods manipulate the mortals' ability to blind themselves to this thing called 'love' to fulfil their own cause. Love does not exist as a fulfilling thing but I think it takes on a deceptive persona of hidden and often destructive agendas, in this case Helen represents war.
Unfortunately, haven't read Book III yet, so my opinion of it isn't as refined, but if I can remember what I read last year, the way that Paris is described in the Iliad is that he's weak and unable to bear the brunt of war. He's feminine and all he has is his beauty. Like Helen, Homer assimilates them with beauty, and with it, they present an immense danger to society: the old men say this behind King Priam commenting on Helen's beauty as a danger to society, and I think it does deserve some mention. Like war, it is beauty that apprehends the men, and it is as equally destructive as we see in the Trojan War.
Women in the Iliad are hostages to the men because of their feminine beauty. Paris' unwillingness to go into battle and to die by the hands of Menelaus, despite having told his brother (i will go into battle yo, don't sweat it if it means to end this all, ya), he does not deliver. Unlike his brother, Paris is very willing to indulge in a comfortable life of pleasure, and with it he doesn't care about what everyone else thinks, including the Achaean army, who thinks he's a bit of a wimp, which is a huuuggee thing because Paris is the f**king opponent's son. You can then add the parallels of this behvaiour with the heroic code and how the heroic code relies on the opinions of others to preserve that honour you gain from battle. You live through what everyone thinks of you, yet Paris neglects this. He's like the antagonist to honour. He dishonours his family by running away from Menelaus, he brings home Menelaus' wife, Helen, he brings home angry people at his doorstep, he brings home war, and when given the opportunity to end it once and for all, he runs away from battle mid-way (*gasp) because he doesn't want to die (huge no-no). This is a huge insult to everyone who is a soldier, who are all so willing to sacrifice a long life for honour in the battlefield and then, there's Paris - a total wimp. He's the epitome of disgrace in the Iliad, who doesn't even comprehend war and what it means to be a 'man'; in Homer's time, of course. tbh totally not biased.
I thought her devastation at her sons' mistreatment was pretty endearing. Like you said - she's immortal so she can't really understand, but she tries anyway to do the best by her son. I think that it's also pretty interesting how powerfully she's represented - obviously she's a women and her power is to persuade the man, considerably less than the female Olympians, but given that she's not an Olympian it's pretty impressive that she persuaded Zeus so easily.
Ahh so I'm guessing you don't know the reason why? BACK STORY: Once upon a time Thetis infatuated BOTH Zeus and Poseidon. Poseidon wanted to marry her because of how beautiful she was and Zeus also fell in love with her because of that beauty. They clashed and out of interest they settled it by seeking the advice of Themis, the goddess of justice and law. With her advice it went down something like this: "yo dawg, i know what im gonna tell you, you aint wanna hear but yo listen. her son will be stronger than his father, so yo, you might wanna scoodlypoop her with a mortal man instead. "
Zeus, being the wingman he is, decides to wed her with a mortal Peleus, who would be Achilles' father. Peleus has a cool history and you might wanna read about him but Ill let you fill in the gap there. But in this marriage, Thetis felt cheated as she was marrying someone lower than herself, a mortal. In other words, Zeus owes her from that, and by extension he cannot let Achilles' favour be left unheard because he is the result of Zeus' own judgement and also Achilles respects the gods unlike Agamemnon - so he can't escape from Thetis' request. Thetis is also very beautiful so it may have also been the reason why Zeus agreed.
Maybe I missed something but I'm not exactly sure what you mean here? I mean I agree with you (was it Hesiod's Cosmogony that talked about the Gods' various attempts at creating civilizations? I remember reading that the Classical iteration of man was like the fifth try or something) but I'm not so confident with your reasoning.
ahh it's Hesiod's Theogony btw
and yeah I'll explain. Once upon a time, all there was in the world was 'Chaos' (as in an actual entity). Then randomly in some kind of like a brain fart spontaneity, out spawned Erebus and Night (aka Nyx). They slept together and got Ether (day), and on a random side-quest Night decides to undergo asexual reproduction and give birth to a lot of children. Long story short it somehow got out of hand, and the golden race of man was born with Cronus, who castrates his father Uranus. Cronus then became the top dude, but then gets killed by Zeus, his son, and then shit happens, the silver race of man came about, which then somehow became the bronze race of man (the lower caste and not immortal sadly) <-- us.
The greeks were obsessed with the sons-killing-fathers kink, until Clytemnestra came around in the Oresteia and began going on about the mother-daughter relationship as being more important, which Athena dismisses (which many feminists have argued over the last century about as a prime example of a patriarchal society prevalent in western culture. but we'll leave it that in another time). This is almost unprecedented as it had almost never been done in Greek myth and tragedy until Aeschylus brought it up
You can read about the creation myth here:
http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/The_Myths/The_Creation/the_creation.html I kind of disagree with you there. I think having the Gods using the Greeks as a tool to solve their disputes stresses the importance of their lives. Especially those who have direct contact with the Gods and therefore have a significant impact on the tidings of war; like Achilles and Chryses. Without them deciding to employ the Gods' help in their personal disagreements, the war would have likely had a different outcome. I think the Iliad is less of a clear 'this is what it's like' and more of an exploration into the nature of the Gods, who were for the most part pretty fickle and confusing in their behaviour.
Yeah no, I won't argue on the hero's insignificance, that wasn't what I was trying to say, but it did come off a bit like that (oops). But remember, there are people in this war like Achilles who are draped in the history and mistakes of the Gods. From Aeneas to his mother Aphrodite, Hera and her love for the Greeks and Carthage, her fave city which she knows will be destroyed by people of Trojan blood, Zeus and his will (?) to proceed with Aeneas' mission, maybe (?) or at least that's how Virgil puts it, Zeus and his burdened past with Thetis and Achilles, and there's probably a lot more that I can't think of.
Point is, there is a reason why so many gods are involved in mortals lives, especially in the Trojan War, as it involves both the divine and mortal realm. However, as I was saying, there is a struggle and the condition which man must face in battle is brutal and harsh. It's almost futile, if you look at it from a larger dimension, but in the Iliad it is this 'present-ness' that the gods envy.
And you're right, Homer explores rather than concludes an experience, and I was wrong to say that he does say 'it's stupid being a mortal'. But given that he has had the gods inspire him to tell the story, and that he adopts this omnipotence over the epic poem, his exploration of both worlds does bear witness to the brutality of living, which can be said that he's saying it in a way that kinda suggests that 'it's just the way things are, and thats the way life is: harsh but abstractly beautiful' :A
Not doing the Aeneid, unfortunately. 
At least you're doing Iliad
(
Home
Help
Search
Login
