TFBT: Impact of the Iliad on You

I am in the delightful position of re-reading "Models of Reception in the Divine Audience of the Iliad ".  A masterpiece on the topic by Tobias Anthony Myers 

As usual it stirs up many questions.  Let me start with the assumption in my head that causes my confusion.  I assume that the Iliad is the foundation story of the Ancient Greek civilization and Hellenistic Age.  It was performed regularly in Athens before 20,000 friendly faces and presumably at other festivals.  It is conceivable that at aristocratic dinner parties (like the Phaeacians' in the Odyssey ) it was the entertainment after dinner .  It was THE text-book for students; Greek, wannabe Greeks and Romans for centuries. And surely every school boy performed at least the first six lines at his recital, so that mom and dad knew they were getting their money's worth.  In short that every literate person for centuries back then had read or memorized the Iliad, that many, many people heard the Iliad and that virtually everyone knew the story.  Myers comments;

"The poet’s insertion of the truce episode in Book 3, whose terms guarantee friendship thereafter between Trojans and Achaeans (3.94), has implicitly invited his listeners to consider a scenario in which Troy does not fall after all. Zeus now explicitly issues the same invitation to the gods on Olympus: “well!, the city of lord Priam could continue to be inhabited....” (ἤτοι μὲν οἰκέοιτο πόλις Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος 4.18). Both Zeus and the poet thus provide the opportunity for their respective auditors to contemplate the possibility of an early end to the war. The model provided by Zeus within the text raises the possibility that the poet, too, is doing this teasingly – to provoke a response.This is not the first time that the poet has teased his listeners in this way. Agamemnon’s testing of the troops in Book 2 causes a stampede for the ships, which the poet makes vivid and urgent by describing it with the same grand similes and other language normally used to give a sense of magnified scale and significance. He then explicitly invites his audience to imagine the consequences"

My question; is this teasing idea true?  Did the assembled gods and goddesses (some of whom were prophetic) mortal audiences then and now, and literate  people  throughout history ever consider a different ending to the story?  When Zeus suggests altering the story line by saving Sarpedon in book 16 his lovely and loving wife responds 

"439] Then ox-eyed queenly Hera answered him: "Most dread son of Cronos, what a word hast thou said! A man that is mortal, doomed long since by fate, art thou minded to deliver again from dolorous death? Do as thou wilt; but be sure that we other gods assent not all thereto. And another thing will I tell thee, and do thou lay it to heart: if thou send Sarpedon living to his house, bethink thee lest hereafter some other god also be minded to send his own dear son away from the fierce conflict; for many there be fighting around the great city of Priam that are sons of the immortals, and among the gods wilt thou send dread wrath."

I wonder if the chaos and anger that Hera foretells in the realm above would be reflected in the response of the 20,000 should a rhapsodist attempt the non-traditional rescue of Sarpedon.  People don't like their classics fiddled with.  I recall the hail-storm of hatred and vicious criticism that met the recent remake of "The Rocky Horror Picture" even before filming began

So again,  considering the promised wrath of the assembled gods and potentially riotous audiences, are you expected to take serious threats of hypermoraimism in the Iliad? 

 

 

 

TFBT: Homer's Chorus

After completing The Ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours,  I came to appreciate the performance aspect of The Iliad.  In addition;  I read Tobias Anthony Myers paper "Models of Reception in the Divine Audience of the Iliad.”  As a consequence, I now envision "The Iliad" as a Broadway show on the road.   

Achilles is the star of the production.  Homer is the lead writer, director and often the onstage narrator.  The whole thing is produced by Zeus for the amusement for his overly large extended family.  They occupy the private boxes high up in the theatre.  Several of them have walk on parts.  All of them constantly comment about the action on stage, so loudly that we in the cheap seats far below can here. 

The only people in the theatre we don't hear are the general audience.  But is that right?  Admittedly, I am a Frankie Fan (Rocky Horror Picture Show Fan)and that colors my opinion of how a live performance works.  But still what pop singer doesn't ask the crowd to join in the chorus?  There are parts of the liturgy that my pastor doesn't have to actually say because the rest of us unasked are saying in along with him.  Who doesn't "hiss", "boo" and go "Awe!" at a melodrama.  How hasn't watched a friend viewing their favorite film silently voicing every moving line?  

Did the crowd sit quietly through the Catalogue or cheer for their home town?  Aristotle says the audience wept, could they have stopped themselves from lamenting?  Any chance they were Homer's chorus.

TFBT: The Limen Between War and Art in “The Divine Audience”

During my re-reading of “The Divine Audience” I began to notice phrases referencing divine  “sublime frivolity  and events “intended as plays for the gods” . These reminded me of the Bards words "That all the world is a stage...”    And J. Huizinga’s observations that “The “consecrated spot” cannot be formally distinguished from the playground, the arena, the card table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the tennis court, the court of justice… are all in form and function play-grounds, forbidden spots, isolated hedged around, hallowed…”[i]   I began to recognize the limnality documented in here; the thin line between war and art.

I’ve spoken elsewhere about my appreciation of “Models of Reception in the Divine Audience of the Iliad” by Tobias Anthony Myers. Myers studies the relationship of Zeus and his divine audience on Olympus as he orchestrates the Trojan War to Homer interacting with a mortal audience as he composes the Iliad.  “Zeus’ performance mirrors the poet’s: through Zeus, the poet stages” within the war the tale of Troy. In so doing Myers steps back and forth over the limen between the reality of Zeus’ war and the art of Homer.  Virtually all the that follows I took verbatim from Myers.

Myers likens the events at Troy to a sporting event.  “Moments of distraction from the story encourage the poet’s audience to follow all the more closely, for such moments are typically associated with events unwanted by the god in question. Like sports fans convinced that if they miss a second of play their team will lose, the poet’s audience is prodded to stay alert by the negative consequences of wandering attention.   Homer invites his audience to understand their participation in terms of attendance at a live spectacle at which viewers play – or can feel that they play – a more active role than movie-goers or admirers of already crafted imagery.” The Iliad “constitutes a well-defined space into which the audience is invited to enter.   It is by entering the sacred space in which the action occurs that individuals assume the role of actors.”

This sacred space corresponds to the “middle” space in which Menelaus and Paris duel. “They marched into the middle of the Trojans and Achaeans, glaring fiercely – and wonder held those watching.  Crossing the boundary limned by Hector and Odysseus, marks the beginning of the action: it is by their entry into the arena, their separation from the viewers who remain outside, that viewers and actors assume their roles in earnest.” When Aphrodite plucks her boy-toy from the scene, “Athena leaps onto the hallowed ground and into the sacred space. She leapt into the middle, and (again)wonder held those watching – the horse-taming Trojans and the well-greaved Achaeans.  They recognize a divine portent and wonder what the gods decided.”

Blurring the lines between reality and theatre, Zeus sends a false dream to Agamemnon urging him to test the army with a proposal to go home.  Zeus is taunting his divine audience; provoking his fellow deities to demand the continuation of the performance of the war; that they must not go beyond destiny; that the play must go on. Homer set up his audience to be resistant to the possibility of the Greeks departing before victory.   Blurring the roles between Homer and Zeus, the poet is able to speak to his audience without ever ceasing to play the role of Zeus speaking to the gods. 

Helen does not even acknowledge the significance of reality.  Helen attributes “what for her is a cruel and arbitrary fate to the demands of poetic performance – song-worthiness.”

Myers uses language like “theater of war”. He compares warriors to athletes. Hector and Odysseus “measure out” the space in which the duel will be performed as though architects.   He talks about funeral games, how victory in the games prefigures his victory in the arena of combat.  He compares to Achilles to a horse in a race and Priam as a fan at the track.

“As Troy corresponds to the arena of the duel, Olympus – the usual site of the gods’ viewing – corresponds to the area of passive viewing outside the duel’s “marked off” space. While the gods play many fundamental roles, the action of the poem takes place not on Olympus but at Troy. Of course, the gods themselves are not always passive viewers: in fact, the Iliad sometimes presents the conflict at Troy as the expression of a divine conflict.  Yet the gods never attack one another except within the arena of activity, the Trojan plain, it is striking that when the gods want to act within the story of Achilles’ wrath they first literally enter the arena.”   

  In conclusion reading Myers is to enter a liminal event.  Myers compares the Trojan War to a sporting event, he speaks of the “middle space” as a stage, Homer/Zeus play with their prospective audiences, Helen declares the war nothing but fodder created for the poets and Myers discussed the roles of the gods that can only be performed within the “arena of the duel”  And finally the most telling  observation of all, “ The implication that the divine audience could decide even at this moment of “performance” to call off the slaughter if they really wanted to communicates complicity beyond that shared by viewers of a staged theatrical performance."

---

[i] Homo Ludens, J.Huizinga

TFBT: No God May Thwart

       

“The most startling silence in the voluble divine community of the Iliad is the absence of any reproach made to Thetis for her drastic intervention in the war.”  

       Laura Slatkin in

                      The Power of Thetis

I argued in Most Dangerous Sea and Beauteous Scarf  that Thetis’ influence on the gods and events of the Iliad might have to do with the gods mutual respect of the honors and privileges divided among the victorious gods at Mecone. 

But, with my continual re-reading of Tobias Anthony Myers dissertation Homer’s Divine Audience: The Iliad’s Reception on Mount Olympus  I have come away with an additional reason for Thetis gracious reception on Olympus.  (I should mention that Thetis was Hera’s foster daughter that might help insure a pleasant reception.)  Myers suggests that the gods “hold in common that a god's wrath against mortals takes precedence over a god's protection of those same mortals”.  He bases this on, among other things I’m sure, the ready agreement of Hera and Zeus in the Iliad to destroy one another’s favorite cities, just to appease Hera’s “bestial” wrath.  Of which Zeus says “Strange queen, wherein do Priam and the sons of Priam work thee ills so many, that thou ragest unceasingly to lay waste the well-built citadel of Ilios? If thou wert to enter within the gates and the high walls, and to devour Priam raw and the sons of Priam and all the Trojans besides, then perchance mightest thou heal thine anger.  (Iliad 4:30)

Likewise Artemis says in Hippolytus 1456 (Euripides) “Hath Zeus ordained in heaven, no god may thwart a god’s fixed will; we grieve but stand apart.”  Although the virgin-goddess refers to her friend Hippolytus dying at the machinations of the jealous Aphrodite, her behavior seems to follow the example set down by the King and Queen of the Olympians above. 

And finally, Bruce Louden[i]  observes the opposing deities; the protector of the hero and the god antagonistic to the hero never confront one another in epic.  His example being Athena and Apollo during the Theomachy, but the same trend can be recognized in the Hippolytus where Aphrodite and Artemis never confront one another.   Artemis seems to summarize it best “No god may thwart a god’s will.”

---

[i] The Gods in Epic or the Divine Economy  page 95 in Companion to Ancient Epic

TFBT: Homer’s Divine Audience: The Iliad’s Reception on Mount Olympus.

This is a review of a book that hasn’t been published yet, “Models of Reception in the Divine Audience of the Iliad” a dissertation by Tobias Anthony Myers.

Honestly, I don’t know how I ended up with a copy. I believe it will be published by Cambridge University Press under the title, “Homer’s Divine Audience: The Iliad’s Reception on Mount Olympus.” I do not know Myers who is apparently a lecturer at Columbia University. I certainly feel pleased for having stumbled across his writings.

Myers basic premise is to compare Zeus and “the gods” watching to the Trojan War from Mt. Olympus, with the poet and the mortal audience listening to the tale. Primarily Myers arguments center around the four occasions when the gods are feasting on Olympus, Books 4, 7, 22 and 24. Where there is “sweet nectar from the bowl. And unquenchable laughter“ feasting, happy hearts, and the sweet voices of the muses.

Some arguments are often lengthy, but well-written, easy to follow and satisfying. The benefit of his arguments is that they give sound motivation to actions and scenes that often appear lacking.

Imagine if you wil, that we have the honor to be gathered at a great feast and the entertainment is Homer himself. Like any performer, he would greet us, maybe pick stories that are pertinent or popular in our circles and maybe even play with our expectations. Myers suggests just this sort of interaction between the poet with his audience and Zeus with the divine audience. Homer using Zeus’ voice plays with the gods, suggests alternative endings to the little drama they’ve designed down below, plays with their emotions. In the same breathe the poet is doing the same to his mortal audience.

Myers also incorporates the language of sacred space into his readings of the Iliad which then offers the same performance dynamic for the Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad during games and in the arena. This could all get very complex, but Myers knows how to work his audience. It all comes across as brilliant.

Just a few quotes I’ve been tweeting;

• “The Iliad is a ritual that simultaneously honors Troy in the distant past and wipes it out in the performances moment.”
• In regards to the gods feasting on Mt. Olympus, Myers suggests, “it is striking that for the gods this situation seems to be an invention of epic.”
• “Paris is responsible for the Trojan predicament, but Hector is responsible for Troy.”
• "The Iliad’s power depends partly on the fact that in spite of this basic Achaean orientation it does not demonize the Trojans but instead portrays them more sympathetically than it does the Achaeans."

In conclusion, let me finish and summarize Myers’ arguments with a most telling passage. First Myers quotes Iliad 6.357-58 Upon [Paris and me] Zeus has set an evil fate, so that in the future as well we might be song-worthy for the men who are yet to be.” Myers then adds, “Even from her position within the story, Helen can assert to Hector (and to herself, the gods, and the future generations that will hear of her) that hers and Paris’ transgressions, and their grievous consequences, exist to satisfy the needs of the poetic medium.