For Next Week: Reading Questions for The Iliad, Books 1-3

NOTE: Remember that the Paper #1 assignment is two posts down (due next Friday!) 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In Classical Mythology, Morales writes that “it was the gods’ interactions with each other, and with mortals, that gave the myths meaning. It was not important that the gods had moral authority; they did not. They were unfaithful, vengeful, petty, and mean, just as humans are” (43). How do we see this in the first three books? How does Homer show them not as “gods” but as extreme versions of humanity—even caricatures of humanity?

Q2: Examine Achilles’ confrontation with Agamemnon in Book I: how do we respond to him as a hero in this passage?  Does he meet Morales’ qualifications for the mythic hero: “Mythic heroes were—and are—outrageous and outstanding. They are phenomenal. They distil some collective ideal or fantasy” (55). How do we see this here? What makes him particularly “outrageous and outstanding”?

Q3: Though Achilles is often thought to be the embodiment of hubris (Morales, pg.44.), in what ways does Agamemnon also deserve this title?  How do we see the leader of the Greek armies display this quality, and how does it endanger the Greeks’ relationship with the gods?

Q4: Morales writes that “the aim of this book is to understand classical myths not as fossilized entities, but as living agents” (2). What makes Helen a “living” and exciting character even today when we see her in Book 3? Consider her words when she confronts Aphrodite and tells her, “It would be treason to share [Paris’] bed” (41). How could she still be a mythic character for women today, rather than just a ‘prize’ to be won by Paris or Menelaus?