A LIfe for a Life

No amount of bloodshed can ever make up for the loss of a loved one. This is demonstrated by Achilles butchering countless Trojans all because Patroclus was killed in battle. What does this all come down to? An angry, bitter man taking his grief out on innocent souls. Achilles turns into a cruel man because he chooses to become bitter instead of choosing to forgive.

This is exactly the same thing as a loved one dying in a drunk driving accident or being murdered. No amount of money could ever make up for that loss. There doesn't seem to be a punishment great enough for the perpetrator because real justice would be if the loved one never died.

It's hard to be sympathetic to Achilles because of the merciless way he kills all the Trojans, especially Lyacon, who begs for mercy. What Achilles failed to ask himself is if Patroclus would want him acting like a savage animal. Personally, I don't think that Patroclus would want Achilles acting like that. The same thing applies to when we loose a loved one. What would they want us to do after they're gone?

p.s. commented on samuel weeks

Gods at War

The gods had seemingly decided to withdraw from the war before Book 16. But in actuality, they did not do so. The sons of the gods still remained in battle, and the gods and goddesses sought to protect them. Hera, in Book 16, stops Zeus from saving Sarpedon from death, but later, he is perfectly free to send Apollo to hinder Patroklos. The gods apparently are too interested to quit.

All this fight over Helen without a single sandwich

So a big chunk of time in class was spent on talking about honor. And there was a lot of confusion to why Agamemnon was being such a "tool" as quoted by the Kaylie Ruff Concordance. Honor and reputation was and still are a huge part of people's behaviors. People seem to stay clear of things that would ruin their reputation if they can help it. Similarly, if one comes upon an opportunity to increase a good reputation they will act on it. Go back to the Ring of Gyges. The central theme was that if one knew that he could do whatever he wanted without any consequence of being caught, even the good would commit crime. I propose that in the same way, if one could do anything without consequences of their reputations and name being at stake, then they would act any way they wanted. And I honestly think that this has not changed since the days of the Iliad. Think of how society tends to promotes beauty. Many people today are obsessed with anything to make them beautiful. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll listen to Oprah. Oprah Magazine states that over $10 BILLION was spent by AMERICANS ALONE in  2010 on cosmetic surgery, and Oprah doesn't lie. We care so much about how people perceive us on the outside. In the same way, Agamemnon was trying to assert his authority and honor as leader by having a prize instead of going without. What would people think if he were the only one without a prize. I would think of him a pushover. Agamemnon was the leader of the Achaean army! He was their LEADER, and every one was supposed to have a prize except him? I don't think so. I think the way he handled it was perfectly fine, and I honestly don't blame him. The two fairest women were given to him and Achilles, the best warrior in the army. His prize was taken away so the best prize was given to Achilles.  The best prize was given to Achilles, the best warrior, while he, the leader, was left with nothing? Now naturally, I don't want him to keep Chryseis, because it was causing so many to die, but I don't blame him for wanting Achilles prize. Hypothetically, if you entered the national spelling bee where first place wins $5000,  second place wins $1000, and third wins $500, and upon winning find out they don't have the funds to pay the $5000, but do have the funds to pay for the second and third place, would you be expected to be satisfied with nothing? That would not be fair. Instead 1st place should get the $1000 and second should get the $500. Achilles was the one that was in the wrong. He was being a baby. It seems like if Agamemnon would have played it cool and given up his woman but allowed Achilles to keep his, the Achaeans would think Achilles greater than  Agamemnon. Forgive me of my scripture references, but I'm a theology major so I have privilege. ;)

It reminds me of 1 Samuel chapter 18, after David slew Goliath. It says:

"When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres.As they danced, they sang:

“Saul has slain his thousands,

    and David his tens of thousands.”

⁸ Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?” ⁹ And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David."

In the same way that Agamemnon was leader and Achilles was the best warrior, Saul was the Israelites leader and David the best warrior. Saul deduces in this verse that David has killed more men. He has attributed more to the Israelites. He has everything. The only thing left for him to take is the kingdom. I wonder if Agamemnon had a similar mindset? I may be completely overthinking it, but maybe he thought Achilles would attempt to take over as leader. Just opening it up for discussion. It's a possibility.

It's like what has been said so many times inside and outside of honors: The only thing to immortalize you once you're dead is your legacy. Agamemnon could have gone down as a pushover who let everyone else have their way, and be overshadowed by their glory. Or he could have been known as their leader who took what he wanted, and though he stepped on a few people toes, was a great leader nonetheless. 

commented on Susan Berner's "This is SO not fair"

An Epic Love

This is the first time I have read The Iliad and I am completely enthralled. This epic is a nice reminder of what literature can be and how literature directly relates to the human experience. Like Dr. Mashburn said, "Great literature always speaks to what it is to be human." The Iliad speaks to humanity on a physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological level. I believe this epic also contains one of the greatest love stories of all time and not because it is a perfect love, but because the love between the two Trojans Hektor and Andromache is real. They do not have a happily ever after, but their love runs much deeper than a fairy tale could imagine.

In book six, Hektor knows that he must fight alongside his fellow warriors against the Achaians. He also knows that he will probably never see his family again because he is fighting a losing battle. So Hektor goes home to see his wife and his son one last time. This scene is where some might say that Hektor chooses battle and glory over his family. That is partly true. But I would argue that he is not abandoning his family. I believe he, being a Trojan and an epic hero, has to fight. Hektor loves his family, but he also love Troy and he knows that means he might have to sacrifice his life and his family in order to defend his home. He knows his fate is grim, yet he chooses to face his fate rather than be a coward and live. He fights for glory, for Troy, and for his family.

One of my most favorite parts of this story is Hektor's last words to Andromache. This is where the real love story comes into play because his words are genuine and loving even though they are painful to hear. Hektor speaks of Andromache grief after he dies: "So will one speak of you; and for you it will be a fresh grief, to be widowed of such a man who could fight off the day of your slavery. But may I be dead and the piled earth hide me under before I hear you crying and know by this that they drag you captive" (lines 461-465). So as Hektor holds his child and kisses his wife goodbye, there is a part of a person's soul that feels their brokenness.

The love between Hektor and Andromache can be nothing less than epic. Their love was real and true. They  did not have a happily every after, but their love will be remembered long after the fairy tales endings are gone.

P.S.- I commented on Rebekah Dye's blog post.

To Stay or to Flee

In the modern world, a logical argument could be made for both sides equally without any change in judgement of one's character. However, in the age of Greek gods and epic heroes, what else could we expect from Achilles? Even if you had never read The Illiad before, like me, you've probably heard of Achilles and pictured him as this great, noble hero that lives to kick Trojan butt. He couldn't leave, it's in his blood to fight. He wouldn't be Achilles if he didn't fight to the finish. But were his motives for staying and fighting pure or selfish? His motives are not entirely about sacrificing himself for his country, but so that his legacy will live on forever. Or could his reason for staying have more to do with what would happen to him if he didn't stay rather than if he did? He knew he would never amount to anything if he ran from death. He would be miserable If he could not live out his passion anymore. Dr. Mitchell mentioned that this would send Achilles into despair if he were to lead an average life because as Kierkegaard writes,  despair is willing to be oneself. This is why he stays. Not only for the glory, but the loss of glory and loss of purpose.

The Pettiness of the gods.

       In this large scale war between to nations,you'd think most of the drama and struggle going on would be between these two nations of people,The Greeks and The Trojans. Yet...it isn't. This isn't my first time reading the Iliad,yet I am still amazed at the utter immaturity and pettiness of these "gods" that both The Greeks and The Trojans care about and honor so very much. You would think,that instead of fighting among each other,the gods would simply respect each other and get along. But this is not the case. The moment one god compromises or shows favor for a mortal or demigod,all of the gods act out or intervene in some way.
It seems that 'Kleos' does not simply a factor for warriors,the gods must have their take of it as well. At the beginning of The Iliad. The very beginning! We see how the gods get into an argument towards the end of the chapter. And if you think about it,a petty squabble to us means that someone's feelings might get hurt. A petty squabble among these gods practically means a lot of people might just end up dead. Hera and Zeus start to seriously argue and poor Hephaestus comes to the rescue! But how does he do it? Does he use his brute force to silence both his father and mother? Not likely. He pours wine for both of them and they laugh at him running around as a cripple,making a fool of himself. Great parents! Hera was so great in fact,that when Hephaestus was born,she threw him off the side of a mountain. Just because he was crippled. This was my biggest beef when I started reading this. These 'gods' make really awful parents. What parent would laugh at their crippled child struggling to move about quickly and pour glasses of wine for their friends/brothers/sisters? Apparently these gods do! Albeit these gods do many great things for mortals,however in the end I believe they all act on impulse and pretty much do whatever they want with limited checks in their actions. Hence my title,The Pettiness of the gods. They choose so save this man's life,and to kill another's all in a single instant. So much power...so much irresponsibility.

(p.s. I commented on Emily La Force's blog)

Achilles weakness

In books 16-18, I feel like Achilles weakness is shown when Petrakolas goes to battle pretending to be Achilles. If Achilles was really a strong leader he would just stop whining an fight for his people, but instead he lets Petrokolas die. If Achilles had just sucked it up and fought then he probably would not have died and neither would Petrokolas at that time. Even though Achilles asked Zeus to protect Petrokolas and help him win it was still selfish of Achilles to let him go in the first place. I just think it makes Achilles look like a zero and makes Petrokolas look like a hero. Achilles is a demi god and he needs to start acting like it instead of crying to his mommy.



ps. I commented on the glorious blog of KRuff :)....Achilles is a...

The Sacred Armor

In books 16-18 of the Iliad, there seems to be a ridiculous amount of trouble over the fallen heroes' armor. My thoughts are, why are all these soldiers freaking about a dead person's armor when they should be focusing on surviving a huge battle? It's almost as though the armor is more important than the person wearing it.

To assuage my curiosity about the importance of armor, I looked up the definition of it. Here's what I found:

A defensive covering, as of metal, wood, or leather, worn to protect the body against weapons.
A safeguard or protection

 In war, the main thing in a person's mind is not dying, therefore they're going to do anything they can to protect themselves. The armor Patroclus was wearing was Achilles' armor, therefore it must have been nigh on impenetrable. I feel a little better about the mad scramble for armor now that I looked up its definition. 

p.s. commented on Joshua Spell

About a Woman

First blog post of the year! Yay! I remember being terrified about having to write something where everyone could see it last year. Now though, I’m just glad that we’re getting back into posting.

Right now, I’m reading Book IV, slowly, so as to memorize it before the first official Honors party. While reading Book XVI for this week I came across something that related well to what I’ve been reading in Book IV. In the beginning of Book IV, the gods have gathered to discuss the war in which they all have such a vested interest. During this gathering, Zeus and Hera have what seems to be a lover’s quarrel. In the end of said quarrel, Zeus bows to Hera’s wishes in regards to what will happen below on the battlefield.

In the Book we read for today, a similar quarrel takes place, though much shorter than the one in Book IV, and the end result is the same. In both instances, Hera replies to Zeus’s original decision by saying “Do it then; but not all the rest of us gods will approve you.”  And then Homer ends both arguments saying, “She spoke, nor did the father of the gods and men disobey her…”

What is it about Hera that makes Zeus acquiesce to her wishes so easily? And what is it that makes Hera think that she speaks for all the other gods? Doesn’t the text say that Zeus is the father of the gods and of men? Of course, if Zeus is the father of gods and men, does that not make Hera the mother? If this is the case, then I can see where Hera would think she could sway the other gods to her side, and therefore speak for them. But if not, and we know how promiscuous the gods could be, what makes her so important?

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions, but I thought I’d put them out there and see what other people think!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jannah's "Honor and Achilles"

Death in the Iliad.

I've been feeling the pressure to write this week and honestly wondering what in the world to write about. So much of the Iliad world is foreign to me. I have no background in the greeks, no side information to pull from. That being said, the more I read of this, the more I am drawn in. I realize the personalized aspect of these wars has been a hot topic in class discussion, and I think with good reason.  Part of what is timeless about these stories is the raw humanity of it. The raw pain of loss and death is very real to the Greeks, even with all of their gods flying down at convenient moments in the heat of battle. Hector still fights even in what he knows to be his inevitable destruction. Even in all the blood and guts, they still are broken over the death of their friends. There is something in their culture which is perhaps less desensitized to the realities of death than our culture is.
This passage in particular struck me, in light of all those thoughts;

'O friends, though it be destined for all of us to be killed here
over this man, still none of us must give ground from the fighting."
This a man would speak, and stir the spirit in each one
of his fellowship. So they fought on, and the iron tumult
went up to the brazen sky through the barren bright air.


To me, the whole language is so raw. At least I don't think we typically talk like this. There's something extremely naked and vulnerable about the fact that they were stirred to fight, in this particular scene, to fight for someone already dead. I suppose it goes back to Kleos, and the fact that it made their lives full of meaning and purpose. This meaning is defined by the true knowledge and awareness of death, which is something our culture suppresses.


I could be way off so I'd love to hear what you guys think on this.


ps- I commented on "Ethos, Logos, Pathos..."

Honor and Achilles

Alright ladies and gents,
     This may ruffle some shirt collars, and some people may disagree, but hey that's the whole point of Honors, right?
     Honor. This is a prevalent theme in Greek culture, it's all about the honor.  Just like someone stated in class this morning, honor is how the Greeks cheated fate, it is how they gained immortality.  Whether through beauty, strength, wisdom, or the amount of enemies slain by your sword. What is one thing that drives people to greatness? The lust of honor. What makes Epics great? What makes stories great? The quest for Honor. All throughout the ages this has driven mankind on, even today, what is one things that drives athletes the quest of Honor. The honor of being remembered generations after you have passed on, that is a craving that I feel everyone has once in their life.
    At this point in time, I really like Achilles. Yes, I've heard rumors that later on he's a huge jerk, but right now he's cool in my book.  I can see myself in Achilles shoes(or sandals). When I was younger I would love to fight, to physically brawl(especially with my older cousins). Winning was fantastic but the best part was the honor of being known as the best fighter, the strongest, The Queen of the Hill.  Having the credit due to me was huge. If I did something good I wanted to be praised for it. If someone else got the credit, it would enrage me. That was mine! I labored for it, I deserved it! If someone robbed me of my anger, they were going to get my full wrath and revenge. I can totally relate to Achilles.  I also would gladly take a bruise or lose to someone stronger than me, rather than sight out of the action (So I can also totally relate to Hector).
    So when we examine and find that Achilles is just a man shamed and stripped of his honor. Can one blame him for his reaction? Especially since the teachings of Christ were unknown to him? Think about it he could have killed Agamemnon, even after Athena stopped him. So he refused to fight, till all was recompensed. Even in this act you see that Achilles is more than just a blood-thirsty warrior, he is a man seeking the return of the honor due to him.
    Maybe I'm just rambling on, but I want to question Achilles character. For now, based on only what we have read, is Achilles a horrible guy? At this moment in time, he is one of my favorite characters, and I'm sort of cheering for him.

P.S. I commented on Rebekah Dye's blog

Achilles is a...

While Reading the Iliad it takes a lot out of me not to get frustrated with the so called heroes that are racking up applause and glory like tickets at Chuck-E-Cheese. It all seems so cheap to me; this idea of glory and honor that they all claim to be fighting for. I guess I just don’t buy into their concept of honor. Agamemnon and Achilles are literally fighting for their own childish pride. There doesn’t need to be as much bloodshed as there is, but because they’re in this male ego face off they are responsible for the deaths of many men. They are both at fault but Achilles is the most selfish cry baby I have ever encountered in literature. I am fully aware that he is fictional but he’s still, for lack of a better word, a complete douche bag. When I say this I don’t intend to be crude but I’m trying to level with people here. What I’m saying is that Achilles is no hero. He doesn’t fight for his family or his people but is only concerned with his own selfish ambitions and GIANT ego. He allows the men around him to die for the sake of his pride. Frankly, I think as highly of Achilles as I do The Situation (Jersey Shore reference for anyone who doesn’t watch MTV like it’s their job).  These men are considered heroes because they possess something special, but if it’s not being used to better their society then what’s the point? Who cares how awesome Achilles is if he’s the kind of “hero” that lets people die around him for the sake of pride? Maybe I’m too harsh but I just can’t see what the big deal is. 

(Commented on Rebekah Dye's)

Ethos, Logos, Pathos..

This whole blog thing is very new to me, and it makes me a little nervous. So I ask that you all bare with me these first few weeks as I figure this out. :)

Today we discussed these words in class, Ethos, Logos, Pathos....
I'd never heard them before to be honest, but they got me thinking, which method would be most persuasive to me?

In The Iliad book 9, Achilleus is faced with these three types of persuasive tricks when Ajax, Phoenix, and Odysseus come to try to get him back in battle.

Ethos- Having a relational tie to the one trying to persuade you. You'd immediately start to think that you owed them something and therefore you may feel guilty if you refuse their plea.
Pathos- An emotional appeal; feeling the emotion of another person who is practically begging you to do something. You may feel sorry for them because of how desperately they were acting like they needed you.
Logos- The appeal that focuses solely on what you get out of it, the rewards for you accepting the plea.

Out of these tactics we can easily pick which one/s we'd like to think we'd be most influenced by, the one related to relationship and having a duty to another person who we care about. But before they are all laid out in front of us, how can we be sure? Being in a world of materialistic habits, whats to say we wouldn't do something simply for the prizes? Or would we be like Achilleus and reject them all to be more comfortable where we were?

P.s. I commented on Skylar Michelle's post, Camaraderie in the Iliad.

This is SO Not Fair!

I am certain that attempting to win a war or a battle is difficult all on its own, especially in the days of the Trojan War when everything is hand-to-hand combat.  However, the added struggle between the gods and their favor towards certain sides adds a whole other element to the picture.  I always knew that the gods took sides in the Trojan War, and that I would learn more about it when reading The Iliad.    However, I had no idea how large of a role the immortals played, even in single fights between men.  In book 16, the gods seem to be the ones deciding who will win the battle, and not the men who are fighting and dying. 

“Then it was Phoebus met thee there in the terrible conflict, dreadful god! Unmarked by Patroclus he entered the tumult, seeing he joined the encounter with thick mist mantled about him, stopped behind him, and smote him full on the back and broad shoulder-smote with the flat of his hand; and dazed were the eyes of Patroclues.  Also the helmet was struck from his head by Phoebus Apollo; . . . Zeus’s son, sovereign Apollo, loosened also his corselet. Then on his heart fell blindness, his glorious limbs were relaxed; There he stood in a daze.

Here, Apollo is clearly the reason that Patroclus eventually ends up dead, even though it is Hector who strikes Patroclus in the belly with his javeline.  I just think that it is completely unfair that’s the gods are being so frivolous with the lives of the humans. However, if I was an Athenian citizen listening to this story when it was first told, I would feel differently.  Could it be that what the gods do is good and just because they are the gods and they did it, or do they think that a certain action is good, and so they do it.  This is close to what Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro asks, and it really has me thinking about the actions of the god in the Iliad. 

The gods were, well, gods and people thought that no matter they did was good.  However, according to Plato, if the gods don’t agree on everything then their actions could be considered good and also bad at the same time.  Then that makes me wonder if Patroclus dying is good for the Trojans, or bad, or for that matter whether it is good or bad for the whole world.  From a Christian standpoint, I know that everything that my God does is good, but when you bring multiple deities into the picture, it makes everything more confusing.  In a way, Patroclus dies without knowing whether that is the right thing to happen, or then wrong thing, according to certain gods.  I would hate to go through my life knowing that the gods could change their mind or fight about my fate for either better or worse!  I’m sure glad I have one God who has my best interest in mind!

p.s. I commented on Josh Spell's The Humanness of Epics

The Camaraderie in The Iliad

While reading Books 16 through 18, I was truly inspired by the camaraderie in The Iliad.  Throughout the three books the warriors are continually compared to lions due to their ferociousness on the battlefield.  However, the comparison that struck me the most is when they compared Aias to a lion when he is defending Patroklos' body after Patroklos is killed by Hektor.
              "Now Aias covering the son of Menoitios under his broad shield stood fast, like a lion over his young, when the lion is leading his little ones along, and men who are hunting come upon them in the forest.  He stands in the pride of his great strength hooding his eyes under the cover of down-drawn eyelids.  Such was Aias as he bestrode the hero Patroklos, while on the other side Atreus' son, warlike Menelaos, stood fast, feeding still bigger the great sorrow within him."

The pure imagery in this comparison is amazing., and it also emphasizes that even in death these warriors share an incredible bond.  We see this comradeship also in the Trojans when in Book 16 Hektor goes back into battle to fight for Sarpedon's armor after Sarpedon is killed by Patroklos. Throughout these books warriors fight almost to the death simply to protect the bodies of the fallen so the enemy cannot defile them.  Likewise, the one thing that finally is able to get Achilles back on the battlefield is when he is determined to avenge the death of his companion Patroklos.  While characters such as Achilles and Agamemnon  would rather die than be dishonored they also will go to great lengths and take up the characteristics of lions to ensure their companions the honor they deserve.

p.s. commented on Joshua Spell's The Humanness of Epics

The Humanness of Epics

The heroes of the Western epics are almost superhuman— conquering lands, escaping fate and wrestling with the gods themselves— yet they are intensely human and vulnerable to pain. In Book I of The Iliad, we see Achilles' private moment of sorrow.

Now Achilles, weeping, withdrew from his comrades, and sitting down by himself on the beach by the silvery surf he looked out over the wine-dark sea...

Likewise, in Book II of The Aeneid, we hear Aeneas' tearful dialogue.

"What words can tell how royal Troy, the throne of tears, fell to the Greeks? I saw that tragedy and in it played a great part. Who'd tell that tale— Myrmidon, Thracian, or cruel Ulysses' men— and keep from tears?"

These are small moments inconsequential to the plots, but they speak volumes. These epic heroes are not coldly detached from the world but are personally invested in it. They hurt; they bleed; and they know weakness. Achilles withdraws. Aeneas sheds tears. They are not on a pedestal above mankind but are painfully part of it— not humanity deified, but humanity amplified.

For this reason, the epics are not just a celebration of Western thought and culture, but a celebration of humanity, of being human. That is the appeal of stories like Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid. We are Achilles. We are Aeneas. We are them because we are human.

EDIT: Commented on Amanda Gaster's "Guidelines for Blogging."

Guidelines for blogging

WELCOME ONE AND ALL!!!!!!

This is a grade, and a way to measure how much you’re reading, so you really do want to take the time to blog. :)

Blogs are due every Friday morning at 1 am.  This gives you two classes worth of material to write about, and you can blog about anything we discussed in class or anything you read. Your blog needs to be a complete thought, not a rambling mess. If you are confused, feel free to say so, but also pick part of the reading to expound on and try to talk through it.

Your blog needs to be AT LEAST 5-7 sentences, and please use correct grammar (no texting lingo or shorthand).

You are also required to comment on one classmate’s post. Your comment must be 2-3 sentences stating a well-formed thought that relates to the person’s post, what you think about it and why.  Also post on your blog as a "p.s." whose blog you commented on--for example if I commented on Mallory's blog post "Kleos," at the end of my post I will type: "p.s. commented on Mallory's 'Kleos'" This way we can make sure you get credit for commenting!

You get two blog skips because we understand that life happens… so everyone will get two times not posting a blog before they lose credit.

Welcome to Honors, and to those who are returners, welcome back! I am so excited about this year and our journey into truth. The Honors Council is here for you- let us know if you need anything!

Honors Council: Mallory Searcy, Amanda Gaster, Danielle Standifer, Josh Spell, Jannah Lyons

p.s. blogging this week will be a sort of "practice round" to make sure it works for everyone and that you know what you're doing. You will get full credit if you post!