Does Veeky Forums want to discuss this book?

Does Veeky Forums want to discuss this book?

The Iliad and Odyssey exalt the nobility of Honor.

The very first word of the Iliad is “RAGE.” The “RAGE” of Achilles when his honor is violated and his rightful prize and love is taken from him by his very own commander.

Right here we see Man versus State, as Achilles is the superior warrior, and as he takes all the risks, he ought get the reward. That is the Natural Law of Zeus, for after Achilles Natural Rights are violated and Achilles quits, Zeus sees to it that the Greeks begin to lose, as Zeus’s will was done.

Long before Atlas Shrugged in Rand’s cheap novel, Achilles quit the Greek army.

Homer shows that women who honor their commitments, like Penelope, lead to happy endings. Women who disregard their commitments, like Helen, lead to War.

Achilles quits for the sake of Honor, refuses to return when offered millions times more prizes, arguing that once honor is taken away, mere money/prizes cannot buy it back. He also reasons that all the wealth in the world is not worth him losing his life in an arena where his honor was taken away. When offered honors and awards, Achilles states, “I receive my honor from Zeus, not from corrupt Kings."

And too Achilles returns to fight for Honor, so as to avenge the death of his friend Patroculus, knowing full well he will die.

Simply put, Achilles is a man who lives and dies not for mere prizes, nor perks, nor tenure, nor titles, nor money, but for honor, and honor alone.

A few hundred years later, Socrates would invoke Achilles while facing death at his own trial. Socrates was offered perks and prizes and life if he would only recant his teachings that “Virtue does not come from money, but money and every lasting good of man derives form virtue.”

But then Socrates asked, “Would Achilles back down from battle if bribed by physical wealth?” Socrates reasoned he would be dishonoring the Great Achilles if he ever recanted his teachings.

Why did all of Greece under Agamemnon invade Troy for one girl? Why did the families of these men support them in doing so, even the women? Was this woman that beautiful? Yes, it is that in part. There is the saying of the woman who launched a thousand ships. But in going after this woman and the cowardly Paris who stole her, the men were going to reclaim society. It was not that the men were horny and all marveled the beauty of this woman. It was that these men upheld their values so much, that they wouldn’t even let this woman, who had beauty blessed by a “goddess” get away with doing something so heinous as breaking a wedding vow and running away with another man to another country.

And we see this again when Achilles refuses to fight. The Achaens had vows that a certain maiden, as a spoil of war would go to Achilles. But King Agamemnon broke this, and thus Achilles refused to bend to his will and retreated to his own tent. This is showing a people who held on to honor, respect, justice, even at the cost of defying the most beautiful woman in the world (and the mischievous deities that supported her) as well as kings. In both cases what was theirs was reclaimed.

>Why did all of Greece under Agamemnon invade Troy for one girl?
Because if they win they get to sack Troy. A city famed for its wealth. Most people were there just to raid. Read Sophocles Ajax for more on this.

Why did they stay for 10 years? Surely a quarter of your life (assuming you survive) is not worth a bit of loot.

The gods orchestrated everything because they were butthurt about Troy. So they stayed there because of divine will

Plenty of ally villages of Troy to loot. Also they probably didn't stay for 10 years. That was a touch by Homer to compare the Trojan war to the mythical Titanomachy. Plenty of these sort of dualities in the Iliad.

We are talking about the poem, not the historical event which we know almost nothing about.

Sure, what is your guys' favorite chapter? Mine is the making of Achilles' armour.

This is the manliest book ever written. Every description of the heroes and deeds on either side exudes 200-proof kickass.
Also thisWhat are some good translations apart from Fagles and Fitzgerald? I've been meaning to read it again and I want to read a different translation each time.

Anything with Hector the based.

I read fagles first, then Chapman the next 2 times.
I like Chapman's more, but I'm glad I read fagles first.

>What are some good translations apart from Fagles and Fitzgerald?

Lattimore.

Or Rouse if you want to see what a prose version looks like.

Or Pope if you want a beautiful verse version and are ok with the poet's taking significant artistic liberties.

Alright, I'll read Chapman's translation next.

The chapter where Hector leaves Ilium ready to die for it. Astyanax crying at his helmet, man... Fuck.

I am seated here appalled at the naïveté of history of your nation. Paris and Helen were the excuse of the war. All the Greek states in addition to the Sparta of Menelaus attacked Troy because Troy controlled the Dardanelles and charged the ruinous tolls for passage through, which the Greeks, who would like very dearly the easy sea passage for trade with the Oriental East, resented with fury. It was for commerce, this war. The one-quotes "love" one-does-not-quote of Paris for Helen merely was the excuse.

Again, we are talking about the poem not the historical event.

The bigger questions is why didn't Troys Hittite allies come to her aid. It's clear that every major Mycenaean city contributed to the Greek war effort, whereas Troy got minimal help.

>Right here we see Man versus State, as Achilles is the superior warrior, and as he takes all the risks, he ought get the reward.

No. For one, Achilles himself is a king. Agamemnon is the war chief of the expedition. He is not rebelling against the idea of the State or Hierarchy or Law at all. He is rebelling specifically against Agammenon disrespecting him, particularly in the eyes of all the other soldiers.

>The “RAGE” of Achilles when his honor is violated and his rightful prize and love is taken from him by his very own commander.

Love does not come into this at all here. Achilles doesn't even particularly care about that woman. What he cares about is that she was part of the bounty allotted to him by the Achaeans and that, by confiscating her, Agamemnon is very clearly telling the entire Greek army that Achilles does not deserve honouring.

Greek concepts of honour, here being glory, were tangible. The bounty you were allotted were mainly important because they represented an amount of glory. You did not have the glory instantly when you did the deed, the community had to essentially confirm the bestowing of glory and honour on you, mainly through bounty. When Achilles is given the bounty he is given glory, when Agamemnon takes it from him, Achilles has literally had glory taken from him. It's much more akin to $10,000 being awarded to you by your community in light of your service then having the neighbourhood as whole take it out of your checking account because his taxes went up.

>Natural Law of Zeus
More like, "Thetis begs".

>women who honour their commitments lead to happy endings
Hecuba and Andromache might say otherwise. It is also clear from the text that Helen is not exactly a willing participant. She's literally forced by Aphrodite fuck Paris at one point.

>Achilles returns to fight for honour, so as to avenge the death of his friend
Only on a very superficial level. Achilles is basically possessed from the moment he hears of Patrokolos dying to the conversation with Priam. He does unspeakable, unthinkable things during that time. He doesn't bathe or eat or sleep, he doesn't clean the corpse, he slaughters people relentlessly, he is given superhuman power, he fights God's, he desecrates Hector's corpse. It's almost entirely Rage under a thin veneer of "oh, revenge though" and even that is arguable since he doesn't actually stop being a monster when he kills Hector and it takes Priam to restore him to normalcy.


The thing about Socrates is interesting but he's specifically saying, "Would Akhilles have been bribed?" as in just given goods, not given goods that stood for honour. It seems like he's saying that Achilles wouldn't be enticed by money but read it the opposite way, "Would Achilles back down from battle if robbed of physical wealth?" The answer is no, even though he does that very thing in the Iliad, because there is a difference between "wealth" and "wealth that is to represent honour".

Basically the Socrates quote is neat but he could have used Solon or Pericles or Heracles or any historically "good man" there. He wasn't actually making any inference about Achilles other than as an example of a laudable figure. And Plato had a hard on for making So-crates talk about Homer anyway.

Although Agamemnon was not literally a king/state authority, as the chief he was acting as it. This is shown by the power he had in taking Briseis. If he and Achilles were equal then this wouldn't even be an option.

Achilles himself likes his relationship to Briseis as that of man and wife (and they were to be married after the war - promised by Patrocoles). Achilles explicitly compares their relationship to that of Menelaus and Helen, which was what the war was about .

In the same way Socrates internalized the physical battle of Achilles and made it a battle for the soul, so too did Jesus internalize the physical battles of Moses, and make it a battle for the soul, for the Kingdom of Ideals.

Yes, and the answer is 'to make a mythical allusion'. Don't start thinking about it from the point of view of psychology, that's a much later invention.