Be sure to read the next 3 books for Tuesday's class, and watch the 14-minute video below about the ideology of the poem. Please leave a comment below responding to the question at the end of the video.
ALSO: Paper #1 is due Friday by 5pm! Don't forget!
Callie Farley:
ReplyDeleteI feel like the Iliad promotes a pretty cynical view of the gods from a modern lens. I really don't know that much about mythology, but I'm sure that people were very shocked by the way that the gods were characterized and about how the other characters acted towards the gods. However, I'm also sure that there were people who secretly really identified with these characters with their either skepticism or their lack of respect towards the gods. The Gods are supposed to be worshipped, prayed to, and looked towards for guidance but all the stories that you hear about them don't sound make them sound very worthy of worship. Although, in another sense if I were a Greek reader at that time, and did believe in the gods, than it would probably affirm my beliefs in a sense because I would probably think "Oh, well that's what happens whenever you defy the gods".
Yes, we see two things clearly here: the gods are very dangerous and must be placated at every turn; and two, they aren't worthy of their positions of power, and that worship is simply the way you would pay a bully to leave you alone--not a relationship borne out of love or honor (not for most, anyway). Or maybe some gods are different than others? I do find it interesting how even the characters, when foiled, aren't afraid to curse the gods, as Meneleaus does to Zeus when he refuses to let him kill Paris. This shows that they're becoming more and more aware of the essential unfairness of this relationship. They give and give to the gods, and often, get nothing in return. Not even their lives! So what gives, and why bother? That's Achilles' point in a nutshell.
DeleteChloe LaFevers:
ReplyDeleteFor me, The Iliad is tending to lean more on the side of critical rather than affirming. If anything, it seems the author is requesting that the reader at least take what is being said with a grain of salt. Putting their respective beliefs aside, I think the striking difference between Achilles and Sarpedon is the difference in their sense of purpose. Sarpedon does seem to have a more selfless outlook on things as he is willing to grant glory to someone else, if that’s how events should unfold. Achilles’s outlook is that he is constantly being robbed of the glory that is due him. As a result, Sarpedon is able to find worth in the idea of going out fighting while Achilles finds worth in living longer, even if longevity doesn’t pan out to be quite as glorious. Sarpedon is making a statement to both the gods and to life itself while Achilles is simply making a request of them, if that makes sense. And while the two men have differing opinions, they both have the gods and fate factored in as the ultimate decision makers. I think that rather than trying to completely denounce the convictions of Greek readers, perhaps the author is trying to touch on the fact that things like heroism, honor and sacrifice are hollow when executed without the proper purpose and conviction behind them. I don’t think my own convictions would be shaken with this revelation, as I would come to understand I should value such things because they are important to me rather than just because it would please the gods. And I think that is echoed in the passage from Sisyphus to some degree. It is questioning what goodness and morality is worth, and who exactly it benefits, when it is only done superficially and out of fear. We would not want to emulate Achilles because he is apathetic, but on the same note, we could also question Sarpedon’s true motives for seeking glory.
Great responses and distinctions here! And here's something else to consider: while Sarpedon acts more selflessly and affirms the heroism that we would expect heroes to have, he's the one brutally cut down, and even Zeus turns his back on him (his own son!). Whereas Achilles, who acts dishonorably, and has to be begged to do the right thing by Phoenix (and still refuses), prospers in the story and lives on (in The Iliad, anyway). So why would the story reward the hero who defies the heroic values? Unless it really is questioning what goodness and morality is worth. Maybe Achilles' sentiments are the poet's own, put conveniently into his mouth? Maybe that's why they sound so modern...because they express a universal disdain for how the great powers treat the little men and women in their path?
DeleteI feel that the Iliad is definitely on the skeptical side when it comes to the age old honors and values of the Greek Gods. This is quite obvious to me when I consider the way that Achilles acts throughout the war. He basically goes against everything that the Gods have told him to do without question. Normally when considering the stature that the Greek Gods had in society, one would not dare question them. Achilles basically says screw that. He starts to wonder what makes the Gods so high and mighty and why do they continuously bark out orders during a war that they clearly do not want to end. I feel that Achilles does not feel that the Gods are any different than he is. He feels as though regardless of whether or not you listen to the Gods or not you are going to end up in the same place either way. I get the notion that he thinks the Gods view each individual as separate pawns in their games and he does not want to stand for it. If I were to have read this in its time and understood Greek mythology then this would certainly force me to question everything that has been driven home to me so repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteYes, great response...I think this work is totally irrevernet to both gods and heroes. It makes them look mighty and heroic, and then in the same breath, makes them look weak and petty. Achilles willingly allows the Greeks to die to make a point--a very selfish point. His hubris allows him to stand up to a bully (Agamemnon), but then he just backs down and ends up punishing the people most sympathetic with him! Wouldn't a real hero have killed Agamemnon? Not just sulked in a tent? And why would the poet show him in this light...a hero who exults in petty revenge?
DeleteWorld Lit Blog Post
ReplyDeleteBrady Pyle
The Iliad is more critical of the Gods because not all Gods are seen as “good” in the text. Although there might be some “good guys” and heroes, characters in The Iliad do not set good examples, like one would expect from a God. For example, in class, we discussed Aphrodite making Paris vanish from his fight with Menelaus. Menelaus was going to win the battle over Helen, but when Aphrodite interfered she messed with fate and did not make it a fair fight for the close victor. Aphrodite was unfair, and like many other Gods, she was able to alter and change situations to match her preference. Another example was when Apollo sent the plague upon the Greeks because they had taken something/someone that was not theirs. Apollo chose his people, which would be an expected gift from him to those that “worship” him. Like Callie mentioned in her post, I have to agree that as a Greek reader who lived when the Gods were “real” and worshipped, I might see something like the plague as a punishment or “karma” because the Gods were expected to punish those who defy them or their people. Each God, person, or mythical creature in The Iliad has a relatable trait that readers can match and identify with, and I feel as if that is the reasoning behind many mythological stories. Finding a character in a myth that can teach you a lesson is comparable to finding the lesson in childhood fables such as The Little Red Hen.
Great responses...this is a tricky work, since it doesn't offer a real sense of how to act to gain a specific god's favor. There are no rules, no laws, no religion; it really is if the god favors you or not (since many of them refuse people who make the correct sacrifices at the right time and in the right manner). Apollo is the most 'right' in that he punishes those who abuse his priest, but Zeus seems to follow no similar sense of justice. So the question is, does this work's critical attitude reflect an artist's cynical perspective, or was this commonly thought amongst its readership? Were they pious or atheistic? It's hard to say, especially since the poem is writing of a time "far, far away," and not the poet's own time. So that makes it harder to say whether or not they shared these values and ideas.
DeleteFrom the very beginning of the Iliad, we get a feeling that the gods are more human-like than god-like. The kings talk to the gods only when its beneficial for them. When I think of a god I think they should act and be perfect. They do not commit errors or favor someone more than another person and in the Iliad there is a lot of ungodly things that the gods do. For example, Zeus sleeps around and pretends that he does not. Why would a god show those types of acts to people that they are supposed to be admired by. What woman or man would admire a cheater? He also shows favoritism. If I am not mistaken, Zeus shows favoritism to the trojans. What's the point of believing in a god that shows favoritism. If you aren't the favorite, you are never going to get anywhere. Like you suggested in the video, the gods are just there so the people don't cause chaos.
ReplyDeleteKate Robinson:
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, I feel the Iliad has a more cynical view of war, bloodshed, and honor. A passage I thought was especially interesting was, "The mountain lion has not fed for days/ and is hungry and brave enough to enter/ the stone sheep pen and attack the flocks./ Even if he finds herdsmen on the spot/ with dogs and spears to protect the fold,/ he will not be driven back without a try,/ and either he leaps in and seizes a sheep/ or is killed by a spear, as human heroes are," (124). I find this passage interesting because it equates warriors to a hungry mountain lion. In the metaphor, the mountain lion is starving. He does not want to jump into the pen- he must to survive. He does so at his own peril (the herdsmen, dogs, and spears) to get his prize- the sheep. This could be seen as a way to encourage "lions" to fight for what they need, but in all reality, this war is not being fought for survival. Unlike the starving lion, they need not put themselves at risk in order to survive. However, I don't believe, in this metaphor, the sheep is the prize. It is the bloodshed. Men do not need to fight to survive, but they may feel a need to shed blood in order to feel like they are living. This is a cynical commentary to what a 'need' truly is. Additionally, the metaphor makes no mention of what happens if the lion escapes. If he is killed by the spear, he is equated to a human hero. But what of the lions who seize a sheep and escape? Are they just as heroic? It seems to say that what they consider heroes are not men who fight out of necessity, but instead out of the need for bloodshed. Additionally, the ones that fight and live are not heroes, simply a fed animal waiting to jump into the pen again. The true heroes are the ones who fight and die. I feel this metaphor does a great job in showing that the men who fight in this war are doing it for no reason other than to satisfy a need for bloodshed, and if they fight and survive, they are no more heroic than they were when they went into battle.
Gloria Evans:
ReplyDeleteThe Iliad seems to display the utter humanity of the gods, something which may have seemed blasphemous to traditionalist Greeks at the time it was written. Although we see the power of the gods clearly (after all, they control most outcomes), we also see the immaturity, pettiness, jealousy, and complete need for control. When all of the fighting and “heroism” is done in the name of the gods, this intimidate look into what could be their ugliest portrayal might make that fighting seem completely futile. I find this work to be dismissive and critical of the gods because it shows how they’ve manipulated and ruined peoples’ lives for kicks and giggles. If I were a Greek reading this, I would definitely be discouraged. These gods don’t protect out of sense of goodwill or love, they protect or destroy from a place of obsession and competition.
Kourtney Fullerton
ReplyDeleteI think the work is affirming for humans and their beliefs in values through the ideology of the gods, but it critics the gods for not upholding the honor they are rumored to have. Achilles for example, has been a pawn for the gods and knows that they have the ultimate control of what happens to him, so it brings criticism to his beliefs. Various gods and myths can highlight the heroic deeds and values that humans can idolize, but in this particular work we see them more humanized with flaws of jealousy and greed. If I were a Greek of the time reading this I'm honestly not sure how I would respond to it. It shows the gods as selfish beings but they are supposed to be giving, and they treat human life as if it is disposable at their will. It's not very comforting to believe that these are the beings you pray for when you need help.