 伊利亚特
特洛伊戰爭和史詩係列
久逝的歲月給特洛伊戰爭蒙上了一層神秘的色彩。但是，包括希羅多德和修昔底得在內的歷史學家們一般都不否認這場戰爭的真實性，雖然對它進行的年代，自古以來便沒有一種統一的定說。按希羅多德推測，特洛伊戰爭進行的年代約在公元前1250年左右，[●]而根據Mor Pchum的記載，希臘人攻陷特洛伊的時間應在前1290—8年間。近代某些學者將破城時間估放在前1370年左右。希臘學者厄拉托塞奈斯（Eratosthenes，生於前275年）的考證和提法得到一批學人的贊同——他的定取是前1193—84年。大體說來，西方學術界一般傾嚮於將特洛伊戰爭的進行年代擬定在公元前十三到十二世紀，即慕凱奈（或邁錫尼）王朝（前1600—1100年）的後期。
●《歷史》或《希波戰爭史》2·145·4。
根據故事和傳說，特洛伊（即伊利昂）是一座富有的城堡，坐落在小亞細亞的西北部，瀕臨赫勒斯龐特的水流。國王普裏阿摩斯之子帕裏斯（即亞歷剋山德羅斯）曾出遊遠洋，抵斯巴達，備受王者墨奈勞斯的款待。其後，他將墨奈勞斯之妻海倫帶出斯巴達，返回特洛伊。希臘（包括它的“殖民地”）各地的王者和首領們於是風聚雲集，意欲進兵特洛伊，奪回海倫。艦隊彙聚奧利斯，由慕凱奈國王阿伽門農統領。經過一番周折，希臘聯軍登岸特洛伊，兵臨城下，但一連九年不得破獲。在第十年裏，阿伽門農和聯軍中最好的戰將阿基琉斯發生爭執，後者由此罷兵不戰，使特洛伊人（由赫剋托耳統領）節節獲勝，兵抵希臘人的海船和營棚。赫剋托耳陣殺帕特羅剋洛斯後，阿基琉斯重返戰場，逼回特洛伊軍伍，戰殺赫剋托耳。其後，阿基琉斯亦戰死疆場。按照神意，阿開亞人（即希臘人）最終攻下特洛伊，蕩劫了這座城堡。首領們歷經磨難，回返傢園，面對新的挑戰，新的生活。
如果說特洛伊戰爭是一件確有其事的史實，世代相傳的口述和不可避免的“創新”已使它成為一個內容豐富、五彩繽紛、充滿神話和傳奇的故事或故事係列。繼荷馬以後，詩人們又以特洛伊戰爭為背景，創作了一係列史詩，構成了一個有係統的史詩群體，即有關特洛伊戰爭（或以它為背景）的史詩係列。[●]“係列”中，《庫普利亞》（Kypria，十一捲）描寫戰爭的起因，即發生在《伊利亞特》之前的事件；《埃西俄丕斯》（Aethiopis，五捲）和《小伊利亞特》（Ilias Mikra，四捲）以及《特洛伊失陷》（Niupersis，兩捲）續補《伊利亞特》以後的事件；《回歸》（Nosti，五捲）敘講返航前阿伽門農和墨奈勞斯關於回返路綫的爭執，以及小埃阿斯之死和阿伽門農回傢後被妻子剋魯泰奈絲特拉和埃吉索斯謀害等內容。很明顯，這三部史詩填補了《伊利亞特》和《奧德賽）之間的“空缺”。緊接着俄底修斯回歸的故事（即《奧德賽》），庫瑞奈詩人歐伽蒙（Eugamon）創作了《忒勒戈尼亞》（Telegonia，兩捲），講述俄底修斯和基耳凱之子忒勒戈諾斯外出尋父並最終誤殺其父，以後又婚娶裴奈羅佩等事件。《庫普利亞》和《小伊利亞特》等史詩內容蕪雜，結構鬆散，缺少必要的概括和提煉，其藝術成就遠不如荷馬的《伊利亞特》和《奧德賽》。亞裏斯多德認為，史詩詩人中，惟有荷馬擺脫了歷史的局限，着意於摹仿一個完整的行動，避免了“流水賬”式的平鋪直敘，擯棄了“散沙一盤”式的整體佈局。[●]從時間上來看，《庫普裏亞》等明顯的晚於荷馬創作的年代，它們所描述的一些情節可能取材於荷馬去世後開始流行的傳說。
●除了荷馬的《伊利亞特》和《奧德賽》外，其他史詩均已失傳。此外，這些作品或史詩衹是古希臘史詩係列（epikos kuklos）中的一部分。為了便於區分和對比，傳統上，人們一般不把荷馬史詩列入epic cycle的範圍。
●《詩學》8·1451a16—30，26·1462B8—11。
荷馬
歷史上是否確曾有過荷馬其人，希臘人的回答是肯定的。生活在公元前七世紀上半葉的厄菲索斯詩人卡利諾斯（Callinos）曾提及史詩《塞拜德》，認為它是荷馬的作品；生活在前六世紀的色譜法奈斯（Xenophanes）和開俄斯詩人西摩尼得斯（Simonides，約前556—468年）也曾提及荷馬的名字。
希臘人相信，荷馬（Homeros）出生在小亞細亞，可能在伊俄尼亞（Ionia），也可能在埃俄利斯（Aeolis）。古時候，至少有七個地方或城市競相爭奪荷馬的“所有權”，包括和小亞細亞隔海相望的雅典和阿耳戈斯。在衆多的競爭者中，人們較為傾嚮於接受的有兩個，即伊俄尼亞的基俄斯（Chios）和埃俄利亞的斯慕耳納（Smuma）。開俄斯詩人西摩尼得斯稱荷馬為Chios aner（基俄斯人）[●]，品達則認為基俄斯和斯慕耳納同為荷馬的故鄉。[●]哲學家阿那剋西墨奈斯（Anaximenes）認定荷馬的家乡在基俄斯；史學家阿庫西勞斯（Acusilaos）和赫拉尼科斯（Hellanikos）也表示過同樣的意嚮。此外，在古時歸於荷馬名下的“阿波羅頌”裏，作者稱自己是個“盲人”，來自“山石嶙峋的基俄斯。”[●]
●片斷85，Bergk；另見片斷8，West
●古時候，人們傳統上將斯慕耳納定為荷馬的出生地，而將基俄斯看作是他創編《伊利亞特》的地方，即《伊利亞特》的“故鄉”。
●《荷馬詩頌》，“阿波羅頌”172。
薩摩斯史學家歐伽昂（Eugaion）相信荷馬為斯慕耳納人，荷馬問題專傢、薩索斯人斯忒新勃羅托斯（Stesimbrotos，生活在前五世紀）不僅認定荷馬是斯慕耳納人，而且還說那裏有詩人的詞龕，受到人們像敬神般的崇仰。在早已失傳的《論詩人》裏，亞裏斯多德稱荷馬卒於小島伊俄斯（Ios），這一提法可能取自當時流行的傳聞。
按希羅多德推算（以每百年三代人計），荷馬的生活年代，“距今至多不超過四百年”，換言之，大約在公元前850年左右。[●]希羅多德將荷馬和黑西俄得歸為同時代的詩人，[●]而色諾法奈斯則以為荷馬的活動年代早於黑西俄得。[●]修昔底得對此有過間接的提述，認為荷馬生活在特洛伊戰爭之後，其間不會有太久遠的年隙。[●]至遲在公元前七至六世紀，已有人引用荷馬的詩句；至前五世紀，荷馬已是傢喻戶曉的名字。由此可見，將荷馬的生活年代推定在公元前八世紀（至七世紀初），應當不能算是太過草率的。一般認為，《伊利亞特》的創編時間可能在公元前750至675年間。
●《歷史》2·53·2。
●《歷史》2·53·2。
●片斷B13，Diels—Kranz。
●《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》l·3·3。
《伊利亞特》
荷馬既不是古希臘惟一的、也不是最早的史詩詩人。《伊利亞特》基本上取用古老的伊俄尼亞方言，同時亦包容大量的埃俄利斯方言的用語、變格和其他語法特徵，有的甚至可以追溯到古老的慕凱奈時代。此外，阿耳卡底亞一塞浦路斯方言也在《伊利亞特》中留下了它的印跡。很明顯，關於特洛伊戰爭的史詩起源於古遠的年代，（可能）以不太長的故事形式流傳於宮廷、軍營和民間。荷馬的功績，不在於首創描述特洛伊戰爭的故事或史詩，而在於廣徵博採，巧製精編，苔前人之長，避衆傢之短，以大詩人的情懷，大藝術傢的功力，創作了《伊利亞特》和《奧德賽》這兩部不朽的詩篇。
Ilaias，即《伊利亞特》，意為“關於伊利昂的故事”或“伊利昂詩記”，作為詩名，最早見之於希羅多德的著作。《伊利亞特》共二十四捲（係後人所分），15,693（±）行，各捲的長度從429到999行不等。荷馬史詩采用六音步長短短格（即揚抑抑格），取其前長後短的下衝之勢。但是，荷馬史詩又不是長短短格的“一統天下”。實際上，除第五音步外，其他音步亦可接受長長格（即揚揚格）；此外，第六音步更是長短短格的“禁區”，一般用長短格（即揚抑格）取而代之。這樣，我們可用下列符號或符號組合，表示荷馬史詩（或六音步長短短格敘事詩，英雄史詩）的格律或節奏形式：
—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—U
荷馬是一位吟誦詩人（aoides），生活在一個還沒有書面文字，或書面文字已經失傳、尚未復興或重新輸入（至少尚不廣泛流行）的時代。所以，《伊利亞特》首先是一部口頭文學作品。口誦史詩的一個共同和顯著的特點是采用一整套固定或相對固定的飾詞、短語和段落。顯然，這一創作方式有助於詩人的構製。記憶以及難度很大的臨場吟誦和不可避免的即興發揮。在《伊利亞特》裏，阿伽門農是“軍隊的統帥”（或“兵衆的首領”），墨奈勞斯是“嘯吼戰場的”戰將；我們讀到“沉雷遠播的”宙斯。“白臂膀的”赫拉、“足智多謀的”俄底修斯、“頭盔閃亮的”赫剋托耳、“捷足的”阿基琉斯、“脛甲堅固的”阿開亞人、“酒藍色的”大海和“土地肥沃的”特洛伊。這些程式化用語（form．lae）不僅點出了被修飾者（名詞，人或物）的某個或某些特點。屬性和品類，而且有助於渲染和墨飾史詩凝重、宏偉和肅穆的詩品特徵。英雄們“高大”、“魁偉”、“英俊”，在滿足了吃喝的欲望後雄辯滔滔，送吐“長了翅膀的話語”，或躺下享受睡眠的香甜。英雄們敢作敢為，盛怒時“惡狠狠地盯着”對手，陣亡後淬然倒地，“轟然一聲，鎧甲在身上鏗鏘作響”。他們先是全副武裝，接着衝上戰場，跳下戰車，和對手互駡一通，撂倒數名戰將，把敵人趕得遑遑奔逃，然後自己受挫負傷，舉手求告神佑，重新獲得勇氣和力量，繼續戰鬥，陣殺敵方的猶首。接着，兩軍圍着屍體展開惡戰，傷亡慘重，憑藉神的助佑，從槍林箭雨下救出陣亡的將領和伴友。《伊利亞特》中描述了五次這樣的“壯舉”（aristeiai），用了類似的模式，雖然在某些單項上略有出入。大段的復述（如 2·11—15， 23—33， 60—70，9·123—57，354—99等）有助於減輕詩人的勞動強度，加長史詩的篇幅，深化聽衆對某些內容的印象。
程式化用語的形成和發展經歷了漫長的歲月。某些用語，尤其是某些神祗的指稱，如阿耳吉豐忒斯（赫耳墨斯）、阿特魯托奈（雅典娜）等，在荷馬生活的年代可能已是“化石”或“古董”。作為飾詞，“牛眼睛的”可能産生於崇拜圖騰的時代，在荷馬史詩裏已失去它的字面意義，成為“美麗的”、“漂亮的”同義語。
一位神或英雄往往有一個以上、甚至幾十個飾詞或程式化用語。詩人可以根據格律和音步的需要選用合適的飾詞。以對宙斯為例，在不同的上下文和格律組合裏，詩人用了不同的修飾成分，包括“多謀善斷的”、“彙聚烏雲的”、“沉雷遠播的”等等。同樣，根據格律和音律的需要，詩人有時用“長發的”，有時則用“脛甲堅固的”，偶爾也用“身披銅甲的”修飾阿開亞人。格律和音律原則製約着詩人的用詞，同時也豐富了史詩的語言，增強了它的表現力。衆多的飾詞使詩人有可能不僅根據格律的要求，而且還能照顧到意思或語義的需要，選用合適的用語。當阿基琉斯籌備帕特羅剋洛斯的葬禮時，他就不再是“捷足的”英雄，而是“心胸豪壯的”夥伴，因為在這一語境中，後者似乎比前者更具莊重肅穆的色彩。然而，有時，為了照顧格律和句式的規整，也為了維護史詩中程式化用語的穩定性，詩人亦會有意識地“忽略”飾詞的原意，而把它們當做純粹的格律成分，附加在名詞或被修飾成分之上。例如，我們一般不會把惡魔波魯菲摩斯看作是“神一樣的”（《奧德賽》l·70）英雄，也不會傾嚮於認為“尊貴的母親”符合乞丐伊羅斯娘親的身份（《奧德賽10·5）。有的程式化飾詞明顯地不符合被修飾成分當時的狀態和處境。比如，阿芙羅底忒在冤訴時仍然是“歡笑的”（5·375），白日的晴空是“多星的”（8·46），而骯髒的衣服照舊是“閃光的”（《奧德賽》6·26）等等。
荷馬是一位功底深厚、想像豐富、善於創新的語言大師。《伊利亞特》“詞章華麗，妙語迭出，精彩、生動的用詞和比喻俯拾皆是。荷馬知用暗喻（如“戰鬥的屏障”（喻善戰的壯勇）。“羊群的母親”（喻山地），但卻更為熟悉，也更善使用明喻。《伊利亞特》中的明喻分兩類，一類為簡單型，另一類則是從簡單型的基礎上發展而來的復雜型。簡單型明喻的結構特徵是A像B。埃阿斯的戰盾“像一堵墻”，兵勇們像狼或獅子似地戰鬥。阿波羅從俄林波斯上下來，“像黑夜一般”（l·47）；塞提絲從海裏出來，“像一層薄霧”（l·359）。此類明喻，荷馬用來得心應手，熨貼自如，其技巧可謂已達爐火純青的地步。
另一類明喻，即復雜型明喻，在其他民族早期的史詩中絶少出現，但在荷馬史詩中卻是個用例衆多、趨於普通的語言現象。此類明喻的結構特徵是在A像B之後附加一整段完整的內容，其修飾或解說對象不是接受喻示的A，而是作為喻象物的B。例如：
如同一位邁俄尼亞或卡裏亞婦女，用鮮紅的顔料
塗漆象牙，製作馭馬的頰片，儘管許多馭手
為之唾涎欲滴，它卻靜靜地躺在
裏屋，作為王者的佳寶，受到雙重的
珍愛，既是馬的飾物，又能為馭者增添榮光。（4·141－45）
通常，詩人以“就像這樣……”結束明喻，繼續故事的進程：
就像這樣，墨奈勞斯，鮮血浸染了你強健的
大腿，你的小腿和綫條分明的踝骨。（4·146—47）
一般說來，史詩屬敘事詩的範疇。《伊利亞特》中的敘述分兩種，一種是詩人以講敘者的身份所作的敘述，另一種是詩人以人物的身份所進行的表述、表白和對話。亞裏斯多德稱第一種形式為“描述”，稱第二種形式為“表演”。[●]《伊利亞特》中，直接引語約占一半左右，而直接引語即為人物的敘述（包括復述），近似於劇中人（dramafis personae）的話白。毫無疑問，此類語言形式為表演式敘述提供了現成的材料。從這個意義上來說，《伊利亞特》是介於純粹的敘事詩（即詩人完全或基本上以講述者的身份敘述）和戲劇（詩）之間的一種詩歌形式。柏拉圖認為，荷馬史詩屬於悲劇的範疇，[●]而荷馬是“第一個悲劇詩人”。[●]
●《詩學》3·1448a21—24。
●《共和國》10·595C。
●《共和國》10·607A。
《伊利亞特》描述了一場轟轟烈烈的戰爭中最悲壯的一頁。它展示了戰爭的暴烈，和平的可貴；抒表了勝利的喜悅，失敗的痛苦；描述了英雄的業績，徵戰的艱難。它闡釋人和神的關係，審視人的屬性和價值；它評估人在戰爭中的得失，探索催使人們行動的內外因素；在一個神人匯雜、事實和想像並存、過去和現在交融的文學平面上對影響人的生活、决定人的思想、製導人的行為的一係列重大問題，進行了嚴肅的、認真的、有深度的探討。
《伊利亞特》所觸及的一個最根本的問題是人生的有限和在這一有限的人生中人對生命和存在價值的索取。和平時期的生活是美好的。牛羊在山坡上漫步，姑娘們在泉溪邊浣洗；年輕人穿梭在笑語之中，喜氣洋洋地采擷豐産的葡萄。詩人彈撥竪琴，動情的引吭高歌；姑娘小夥們穿着漂亮的衣衫，跳出歡快的舞步（18·561—72）。然而，即便是典型意義上的幸福生活，也不可避免地包孕着悲愁的種子，人的屬類使他最終無法擺脫死的迫脅。人是會死的，不管他願不願意見到死的降臨。人生短暫，短得讓人不寒而慄：
裂地之神，你會以為我頭腦發熱，
倘若我和你開打，為了可憐的凡人。
他們像樹葉一樣，一時間風華森茂，
如火的生機，食用大地催産的碩果；然而好景不長，
他們枯竭衰老，體毀人亡。（21·462—6）
人生如同樹葉的催發和枯亡；在第六捲第145—49行裏，荷馬已表述過這一思想。在戰爭中，在你死我活的絞殺中，死亡每時每刻都在發生；人們尖叫着紛紛倒地，“頭臉朝下”，“手抓泥塵”。死神把成百上千的壯勇拖人陰暗的地府；戰爭張開血盆大口，吞噬年輕的鬥士，啐嚼蓬勃的人生。即便勇烈如阿基琉斯，最終也將走上戰死疆場的辛酸路：
但現在，誰也甭想死裏逃生，倘若神3氏把他送到
我的手裏，在這伊利昂城前……所以，
我的朋友，你也必死無疑。既如此，你又何必這般疾首痛心？
帕特羅剋洛斯已經死去，一位遠比你傑出的戰勇。
還有我——沒看見嗎？長得何等高大、英武，
有一位顯赫的父親，而生我的母親更是一位不死的女神。
然而，就連我也逃不脫死和強有力的命運的迫脅，
將在某一天拂曉、黃昏或中午，
被某一個人放倒，在戰鬥中，
用投槍，或是離弦的箭鏃。（21·103—13）兵勇們知曉他們的使命，他們的歸宿；那是戰鬥的人生。正如俄底修斯慷慨陳辭的那樣：……我們，按着
宙斯的意志，歷經殘酷的戰爭，從青壯
打到老年，直至死亡，誰也不能幸免。（且485—87）生命短暫，戰爭無情。但是，壯勇們並沒有悲觀失望，消極頽廢，也沒有因此貪生怕死，畏縮不前。不錯，凡人的生聚就像樹葉一樣，秋風一起，籟籟落地，一去不返。但是，倘若
……一日
春風拂起，枝幹便會抽發茸密的新緑。
人同此理，新的一代崛起，老的一代死去。（6·147—49）
人生充滿生機，充滿創建功業的希望和喜悅。世代的更替給傢族帶來的不是悲生厭世的情緒，不是怨天尤人的悲嘆，不是無所作為和默默無聞，而是槍馬創立的霸業，汗血澆鑄的英名，世代相傳的美談。戰勇們不厭其煩地對着敵人大段地宣講自己的宗譜，從中享受作為英雄後代的光榮和驕傲。戰爭誠然無情，死亡確實可怕，但戰士的責職是效命疆場，戰士的榮譽是拼殺擄掠，戰士的喜悅是千古留芳：
我的朋友啊，要是你我能從這場戰鬥中生還，
得以長生不死，拒老抗衰，與天地同存，
我就再也不會站在前排裏戰鬥，
也不會再要你衝嚮戰場，人們爭得榮譽的地方。
但現在，死的精靈正挨站在我們身邊，
數千陰影，誰也逃生不得，躲不過它的擊打——
所以，讓我們衝上前去，要麽為自己爭得榮光，要麽把它
拱手讓給敵人！（12·322—28）在嚮對手挑戰時，赫剋托耳高聲喊道，倘若讓他得手，他將把遺體交還長發的阿開亞人，使他們得以禮葬死者，堆墳築墓，在靠海的地方。他預言：
將來，有人路經此地，駕着帶坐板的海船，
破浪在酒藍色的洋面，眺見這個土堆，便會出言感嘆：
“那裏埋着一個戰死疆場的古人，
一位勇敢的壯士，倒死在光榮的赫剋托耳手下。”
將來，有人會如此說告，而我的榮譽將與世長存。
（7·87—91） 今生匆忽，所以在所必爭；生命可貴，所以必須珍惜。財富可以通過掠劫獲取，但人的魂息，一經滑出齒隙，就無法“再用暴劫掠回，也不能通過易賈復歸”。阿基琉斯寧可做一個農人的幫工，也不願當冥府裏鬼魂的王者（《奧德賽》12·489—21）。然而，對生命的摯愛，沒有使英雄成為生命的奴僕——除開神的因素，他們始終是它的主人。明知命運險厄，但卻拒不嚮它屈服；明知徵戰艱難，但即使打到頭破血流，也要拼個你死我活。活要活得揚眉吐氣，死要死得明明白白。在黑霧彌漫的戰場上，忒拉蒙之子埃阿斯喊出了悲憤的呼號：
哦，父親宙斯，把阿開亞人的兒子們拉出迷霧吧！
讓陽光照瀉，使我們重見天日！把我們殺死吧，
殺死在燦爛的日光裏，如果此時此刻，毀滅我們能使你歡悅！
（17·645—47） 用有限的生命抗拒無限的困苦和磨難，在短促的一生中使生命最大限度地獲取和展現自身的價值，使它在抗爭的最熾烈的熱點上閃爍出勇力、智慧和進取的光華。這便是荷馬的勇士們的人生，凡人試圖衝破而又無法衝破自身的局限的悲壯（另見“英雄”節）。很明顯，這是人生的悲劇，也是人生的自豪。雖然這一主題在後世的悲劇作傢、尤其是索福剋勒斯的作品中得到了淋漓盡致的發揮——我們不要忘記，是荷馬和他的《伊利亞特》首先教我們看到人生的悲苦，人生的英烈，人生的渺小和偉大。
英雄
按照荷馬的觀點，英雄或壯士是神的後裔，天之驕子，凡人中的寵兒。英雄們具備凡人所羨慕的一切，是阿開亞人中的俊傑（aristees panachaion）。他們出身高貴，人人都有顯赫的門第，可資誇耀的傢族，坐霸一方，王統天下。他們相貌俊美，儀表堂堂，鶴立雞群在蕓蕓衆生之中。阿基琉斯是男性美的典範（《奧德賽》11·470）。前往贖取兒子遺體的普裏阿摩斯，在“滿足了吃喝的欲望後”，凝目阿基琉斯，
驚慕他的俊美，高大挺拔的身軀，就像
神明一般……（24·630—31） 在特洛伊城樓上，普裏阿摩斯望着阿伽門農的雄姿，開口問道（對海倫）：
走近些，告訴我他的名字，那個偉岸的勇士，
他是誰，那位強健、壯實的阿開亞人？
我從未見過如此出類拔萃的人物，
這股高豪的氣派——此人必是一位王貴！（3·166—70） 英雄俄底修斯，雖說比阿伽門農矮了一頭，但他的肩膀和胸背卻長得更為寬厚（3·193—94）。
英雄們膀闊腰圓，力大如牛。埃阿斯的戰盾大得像一面圍墻，而阿基琉斯“僅憑一己之力，即可把它捅入檢孔”的插杠，需要三個阿開亞人方能拴攏和拉開（24·454—56）。碩大的石岩，當今之人，即便站出兩個，也莫它奈何，而圖丟斯之子狄俄墨得斯卻僅憑一己之力，輕鬆地把它高舉過頭（5·303－4）。很自然，在荷馬看來，神的血脈，高貴的王傢子弟，要是沒有過人的勇力，那是荒唐的。英雄是力量的象徵。
儘管戰爭是“可怕的”、“可恨的”、“屠人的”，壯士們卻嗜戰如命，“渴望着”衝戰殺敵，品味“戰鬥的喜悅”。勇敢戰鬥是祖傳的古訓。格勞斯對秋俄墨得斯嚷道：傢父
要我英勇作戰，比誰都勇敢，以求出人頭地，
不致辱沒我的前輩，生長在厄芙拉
和遼闊的魯基亞的最勇敢的人。（6·208—10）他們不僅嗜戰，而且善戰——天底下哪有英雄不會打仗的道理？面對埃阿斯的威脅，赫剋托耳（在《伊利亞特》裏，他還不是超一流的戰將）針鋒相對，開口作了一番“自我介紹”：
我請熟格戰的門道，殺人是我精通的絶活。
我知道如何左抵右擋，用牛皮堅韌的
戰盾，此乃防衛的高招。
我知道如何駕着快馬，殺人飛跑的車陣；
我知道如何攻戰，蕩開戰神透着殺氣的舞步。（7·237—41） 壯士們不僅擅使槍矛，而且能用口舌。荷馬史詩中的英雄是口才出衆的辯者，行動果敢的勇士（9·443，另見2·273，18·105—6，18·252）。勇猛豪強，雄辯滔滔，方為英雄本色，凡人的楷模。會場，如同戰場一樣，是人們“爭得榮譽的地方”（1·490）。作為阿基琉斯的私人教師，福伊尼剋斯負責教授辯說的技巧或本領，因為雄辯“使人出類拔萃”。能謀善辯的俄底修斯之所以受到全軍的愛戴，除了作戰勇敢和受到雅典娜的特別關照外，出衆的辯纔亦是一個不可忽略的原因。特洛伊智者安忒諾耳贊賞墨奈勞斯的表述，認為他用詞精煉，出言迅捷，但卻更為贊賞俄底修斯的穩篤，贊慕他的詞鋒和無與倫比的話辯：
但是，當洪亮的聲音衝出他的丹田，詞句像鼕天的
雪片一樣紛紛揚揚地飄來時，凡人中就不會有他的對手；
誰也不能匹敵俄底修斯的口才！（3·221—23） 文武雙全的奈斯托耳，雖說年紀輕輕（在他年輕時代），卻已能徵戰擄掠，歡悅父親的心胸（11·682—84）；用他的如簧之舌，大江奔水般的辯纔，爭得同僚們的慕愛，使他們傾聽他的意見，尊重他的言論（1·273）。年輕的狄俄墨得斯既是戰場上的主將，又是會場上的精英，他的才華博得了老英雄奈斯托耳的稱贊：
圖丟斯之子，論戰鬥，你勇冠全軍；
論謀辯，你亦是同齡人中的佼傑。
阿開亞人中，誰也不能輕視你的意見，
反駁你的言論……
……你，面對阿耳吉維人的
王者，說話頭頭是道，條理分明。（9·53—59） 不過，狄俄墨得斯的辯纔還沒有臻達登峰造極的水平，因為他還年輕——論年齡，可做奈斯托耳的兒子，“最小的兒子”。
英雄世界的價值觀的中心內容是time（榮譽、聲譽、面子）。他們把個人的榮譽和尊嚴看作是比生命更重要，因而是更可貴的東西。損害壯士的time，奪走應該屬於他的所有，意味着莫大的刺激和冒犯。維護自己的time亦即維護自己的人格、傢族的名譽和人際關係的公正，即dike。顯然，如果發展不當，誤入歧途，time是把英雄推嚮at6和hubris（見下文）的一個重要的價值觀方面的因素。勇力和辯纔是英雄手中的兩種武器；通過它們，壯土為自己和傢族爭得土地、財富和尊榮，維持、鞏固和捍衛已有的社會地位、分配格局和既得利益。
毋庸置疑，英雄不是完人的同義詞。他們（至少他們中的許多人）睏於人生的局限，受欲念的支配和time的催激，有着秉性或性格上的弱點或缺點。由於阿伽門農的狂暴，奪走阿基琉斯的女伴，從而導致這位聯軍中最傑出的壯勇挾怒罷戰，使希臘人遭受慘重的傷亡。當帕拉絲·雅典娜從天上下凡，試圖阻止阿基琉斯和阿伽門農火並時，裴琉斯之子開口責問道：
帶埃吉斯的宙斯的孩子，為何現時降臨？想看看
阿特柔斯之子，看看阿伽門農的驕橫跋扈（hubris）嗎？
（l·202－3） 奈斯托耳批評阿伽門農被高傲和狂怒蒙住了雙眼，屈辱了全軍最好的戰勇；阿伽門農接受他的指責，承認“我是瘋了……瞎了眼，聽任惡怒的驅使”（9·116—19），並願拿出豐厚的償禮，彌補過失。他感嘆道，是剋羅諾斯之子把他推入了狂盲（ate）的陷阱（9·18）。同樣，阿基琉斯的悲劇也有他自身方面的原因。他固執、剛愎、狂蠻，連身邊最親密的伴友對他亦不無微言，說他“剛烈、粗暴，甚至可對一個無辜之人動怒發火”（11·654）。“此人全然不顧禮面”——阿波羅駡道——“心胸狂蠻，偏頑執拗，像一頭獅子，沉溺於自己的勇力和高傲”（24·40—42）。面對阿基琉斯重新出戰的嚴酷局面，頭腦冷靜的普魯達馬斯勸說赫剋托耳退兵城堡，以便在城內抗擊阿開亞人的進攻，但赫剋托耳不但不聽忠告，反而“惡狠狠地盯着他”，把他駡得狗血噴頭。赫剋托耳的蠻橫和暴虐造成了嚴重的後果；他葬毀了軍隊的前程，斷送了自己的性命。
神
荷馬描述了一個好鬥的、擅於辭令而不會或很少進行道德說教的神的群體。荷馬史詩裏的衆神，不是普渡衆生的菩薩，也不是作為道德楷模的基督，亦不是作為凡人的精神寄托的穆罕默德。古希臘詩人以人的形象、性情、心態和行為方式為原型，創造或塑造了一個神的群體。在荷馬史詩裏，神們按人的心理動機思考和行動，有着人的七情六欲，沿用人的社群特點，人的交際模式。神們分享人的弱點和道德方面的不完善——神是不死的凡人。在那個時代，神和人的交往是直接而具體的。神的參與貫穿着整部《伊利亞特》的進程。神可以在他或她需要的任何時候（除非受到宙斯的阻止）下到凡間，尋找任何一個要找的凡人，談論任何想要談論的事情。作為一種溝通的方式，凡人可以通過祈禱求得神的幫助。
和凡人一樣，神以家庭或傢族的形式存在，而宙斯是神界的傢長或旅長。神界的權威甚至比人間更明顯地取决於單純的、不加掩飾的力或體力。憑藉無與倫比的神力，宙斯推翻了父親剋羅諾斯的統治，奪得神界的王位。俄林波斯衆神中誰也不敢和他抗衡，夢想和他爭霸，因為宙斯的勇力遠非其他諸神所能企及。他獸警告多管閑事的赫拉，用詞相當粗暴、嚴厲：
閉上你的嘴，靜靜地坐到一邊去。按我說的辦——
否則，當我走過去，對你甩開我的雙臂，展示不可抵禦的
神力時，
俄林波斯山上的衆神，就是全部出動，也幫不了你的忙！
（1·565—67）
這是個赤裸裸的力的世界。當然，宙斯不是個有勇無謀的莽漢。他是“工於心計的”剋羅諾斯的兒子，以“能謀善辯”著稱。俄林波斯衆神分作兩派，一派支持阿開亞人，以赫拉和雅典娜為骨幹；另一派幫助特洛伊人，以阿波羅和埃阿斯為核心。宙斯時而偏襢這一方，時而放縱那一方，從中享受權勢帶來的喜悅。他曾嚴厲警告赫拉，也曾一本正經地威脅波塞鼕，儼然一副凌駕於兩派之上的神主模樣。然而，他從來不想認真解决兩派之間的爭端。他喜歡遠離衆神，靜靜地坐在俄林波斯或伊達的峰脊，以此表示自己的獨特和超群——不是嗎，宇宙的孤主，既不同污於凡人，也不合流於他所統管的神群。“他遠遠地坐在那裏，既不關心我們，也不把我們放在眼裏”（15·105—6）。興致上來時，他甚至可以就着某件事由，指令神界的兩派大打出手，攪個天昏地暗，愉悅他的心懷（20·22—25）。這，或許就是神界的政治，而《伊利亞特》中的宙斯是個懂得如何運用權術和擅搞政治平衡的行傢。
同幸福的神祗相比，凡人是“可憐的”或“可悲的”。人的一個程式化用語是deiloisibrotoisi（悲苦的衆生）。神的生活，由於超越了死的禁限，因而既沒有人生的艱難，也缺少人生的嚴肅和厚重。按照詩人的觀點，神們理所當然地擁有幾人想要而又不那麽容易得獲的東西，並把它們贈送給可憐的、在體力、心力和智力方面都受到極大局限的凡人。對這些不幸的蒼生，神是勇力、智慧和權威的賜造者。阿基琉斯憑着神的賜助而勇冠群雄，阿伽門農則憑藉神賦的權杖得以王統阿耳吉維人。如果說某人特別聰明，那是因為神給了他智慧；相反，倘若有人幹出傻事，那就可能是因為神們奪走了他的睿智。神給了赫爾卡斯卜占的奇術（1·71），給了菲瑞剋洛斯製作的絶藝（5·59—61），使菲彌俄斯獲得唱詩的靈感（《奧德賽》22·347）。好獵手的技藝得之於阿耳忒彌絲的教誨，好射手的強弓得之於阿波羅的饋贈。
荷馬的史詩世界裏不存在“盲目”、“偶然”或和事態的正常及一般狀態對比而言的“偶發現象”。自然界和人世間的一切事端和現象，如果不是人為的，便是神的手筆。雷電是宙斯送來的，地震是波塞鼕製導的，性愛是阿芙羅底忒驅慫的。《伊利亞特》裏沒有什麽不能解釋的事情。對人物作出的重大决定，荷馬一般采用“雙重動因”的解法（從中我們亦可看到人的作用；在荷馬史詩裏，人，儘管多災多難，但决不是無足輕重的）。阿基琉斯作出奪取阿基琉斯女伴的决定，一則因為自己生性剛蠻，二則也因為受到神力的驅使（19·86—90）。同樣，雅典娜的勸阻和阿基琉斯的抉擇使他避免了和阿伽門農的火並（1·188—218）。在第九捲裏，狄俄墨得斯預言阿基琉斯將重返戰場，受（他自己）心靈的驅使，神明的催督（703）。對一些重大戰事（和賽事）的處理，荷馬亦常常沿用這一方法。帕特羅剋洛斯死於神力和凡人戰力的混合；同樣，赫剋托耳的死亡歸之於阿基琉斯的驍勇和雅典娜的幫忙。
按照荷馬的神學觀，除了神以外，人生還受到另一種超自然的力量，即命運或命限（moira，aisa）的製約和擺布。對命運，荷馬一般不作人格化的描述；此外，moira亦沒有傢譜，不像一般神祗和神靈那樣，可以找出祖宗三代。Moira的力量主要在於限定人生的長度或限度；凡人在出生的那一刻即已帶上死亡的陰影（20·127—28，23·78—79，24·209—10）。凡人一般不能通過祈禱解脫命運的束縛。至少從理論上來說，命運是可以在一定程度上被衝破或超越的。在第二十捲裏，宙斯對衆神說道，挾着由帕特羅剋洛斯之死引發的暴怒，阿基琉斯可能衝破命運的製約，攻破城堡（29—30）。作為“神和人的父親”，無所不能隨宙斯自然握有衝破命運的神力。在愛子薩耳裴鼕死前，宙斯曾考慮把他救離戰場，衹是因為遭到赫拉的強烈反對而作罷：
你打算把他救出悲慘的死亡，一個凡人，
一個命裏註定要死的凡人？
做去吧，宙斯，但我等衆神絶不會一致贊同。（16·441—43）可見，如果願意，宙斯可以救出薩耳裴鼕，但這麽做可能會引起衆神的反感，帶出一係列連鎖反應，破壞天體的和諧，産生難以預期的結果。
城堡及兵民
荷馬史詩裏的核心社區單位是城堡或城鎮（polis，astu，Ptoliethron）。Polis既是兵民的集會地點，又是抗禦敵人進犯的堡壘；既是社會活動的中心，又是進行貿易和舉行宗教儀式的場所。阿基琉斯的戰盾上鑄着兩座城市，集中反映了兵民們在戰爭及和平時期的兩種不同的生活景狀。城堡的外圍有一片農野或鄉村地區，即agros或erga；城市和鄉村一起組成“區域”或“地域”（demos，gaia）。廣義上的polis往往包括城鎮、郊區和城裏城外的人民——由此組成荷馬史詩中的一個基本的政治實體。
城堡的統治者是basileus（國王、王者）；某些王者或統治者（如阿伽門農等）擁有一個以上的城鎮，而以王者居住的城堡為政治、軍事和文化的中心。戰時，basileus是本部兵民的統帥，下設若幹分隊，由頭領們管帶（1·171—72）。重要的社會行當包括信使、祭司等。在荷馬史詩裏，先知、醫者、木匠和詩人同屬“工作者”（demiourgoi）的範疇（《奧德賽》17·383—85），即用自己的手藝或本領為民衆服務的人。荷馬用laos、laoi、plethus、demos表示一般民衆（或兵丁），即來自城堡的“公民”。來自外邦的定居者叫metanastes或xeinos（客民）。無業遊民（thetes）似乎亦屬自由人階層，沒有自己的土地，以幫工為生。此外，在一個以軍事民主製為特徵的古代社會裏，當然不會沒有奴隸（dmoes，dmoai）。如同分得的其他戰禮（戰利品）一樣，奴隸一般歸屬個人所有。
王者、辯議會、集會
作為貴族的子弟和代表，王者是城邦或屬地內的最高軍政首長。在《伊利亞特》裏，阿伽門農以希臘聯軍統帥的身份雄居衆王之上，比後者更具决策的權威。“你統領着浩浩蕩蕩的大軍”——奈斯托耳說道——“宙斯把王杖交在你的手裏，使你有了决斷的權力，得以訓導麾下的兵丁”（998—99）。狄俄墨得斯承認，阿伽門農擁有“別人不可企及的尊榮”（9·37）。奈斯托耳勸慰盛怒中的阿基琉斯不要和阿伽門農爭吵，“在榮譽的占有上，別人得不到他的份子”（1·278）。俄底修斯更是直截了當地警告遑遑奔跑的兵勇：阿開亞人不能個個都是王者，“王者衆多不是一件好事——這裏衹應有一個統治者，一個大王”（2·203—5）。王者擁有上好的份地（temenos），享有率先挑取戰禮（geraas）的特權，接受屬民的禮物和貢奉。在宴會上，他們享坐尊位，吃用特份的肉食，喝飲滿杯的醇酒。作為對權力的平衡，王者有義務宴請共事的首領和權貴。在第九捲裏，奈斯托耳——在作過一番明智的勸議後——對阿伽門農說道：現在
應由你，阿伽門農，作為最高貴的王者，行使統帥的職權。
擺開宴席，招待各位首領；這是你的義務，和你的
身份相符。……（9·69—71）
荷馬史詩裏的王者儘管剛傲不羈、粗莽狂烈，但卻不是典型意義上的暴君。事實上，在政治、司法，甚至在軍事方面，最高統帥的權力都受到辯議會（Boule geronton）的掣肘。與會的gerontes（首領）通常本身即是王者——戰場上，他們是統兵的將帥。他們享有很高的威望，言行舉足輕重。阿伽門農必須認真傾聽他們的意見，按最好的辦法行事（9·74—75）。
辯議會上商討過的事情，如果事關重大，還要提交大會或集會（agore或agora）的討論和通過。在《伊利亞特》裏，阿開亞人的集會擴大到普通的laioi；而特洛伊人的集會還包括年老體弱的非戰鬥人員。有地位的發言者一般要手握王杖，以得體的方式講話。首領們遵從“言論自由”的原則；在集會上，此乃他們的權利（9·33）。Gerontes可對任何人提出批評（甚至謾駡），包括對最高軍事首長阿伽門農。不過，對地位比較低下的人，情況則不盡相同。卜者卡爾卡斯擔心他的真言會招來阿伽門農的報復，衹是在得到阿基琉斯的承諾後，方纔道出阿波羅為何發怒的原因。對一個身份不夠“吃重”的人，責辱王者衹能替自己招來麻煩和不幸。兵衆們通過呼喊表示他們的傾嚮和意志——是贊成，還是反對。
穿戴
在荷馬史詩裏，人們穿着十分簡單。男子們巾身穿用一件用亞麻布織製的衣衫（或許可稱之為套衫），即chiton，然後，如果需要的話，罩上一件（或一條）衣篷或披篷（chlaina，pharos）。一般認為，chiton是個外來詞，取自近鄰閃米特人的用語。Chiton卡及膝上腹下，短袖。在第二捲裏，阿伽門農起身後，穿上一件簇新的chiton和一領碩大的pharos。阿開亞人從普裏阿摩斯進送的贖禮中留出一件chiton和一件pharos，作為遮裹遺體的用物（24·588）。赴戰前，雅典娜穿上父親的chiw，然後扣上胸甲chlainai取料羊毛，分單層和夾層（雙層）兩種，用飾針或鈎扣連係（10·133）。披篷上可織出精美的圖紋，並可染成深紅、絳紫等視感莊重的色彩。Chlainai和pharos的具體區別，今人不得而知；但有一點可以肯定，即二者都可作鋪蓋之用。阿基琉斯的僕屬們用chlainai為普裏阿摩斯備床（24·646）；慕耳彌鼕兵勇們將帕特羅剋洛斯擡上屍床，蓋上一層薄薄的亞麻布，用一條白色的pharos罩掩全身（18·352—53）。甚至可作風帆的用料（《奧德賽》5·258）。在這些上下文裏，chlaina和pharos似乎和大片的織布沒有什麽兩樣。兵勇們一般足蹬條鞋，可能取料堅韌的牛皮。
婦女們通常身着裙衫（peplos，heanos），並和男子一樣，穿用pharos。Peplos短袖，需用飾針別連。亞麻布裙衫常取其白亮的本色，亦可織出各種條紋，染出多種色彩（可能係羊毛質料）——荷馬用“黎明抖開金紅色的裙袍”（8·1）表現曙光鋪瀉大地的瑰麗景色。裙衫一般長垂直瀉，hebewi（長裙飄擺的）是好的一個程式化飾語。婦女們幾乎無例外地使用腰帶，紮在peplos。外面——“束腰緊深的”和“束腰秀美的”正是對這一裝束習慣的貼切而又富有詩意的寫照。
婦女們通常帶用頭巾（kredemnon，kaluptre），可能係一種亞麻布織物。Kredemon從頭頂遮及脖項，甚至可能垂過肩頭。倘若需要，用者可將頭巾掩起臉面，如同裴奈羅珮在走入求婚者們的廳堂。
後器、鎧甲
荷馬本身沒有經歷過特落伊戰爭。荷馬史詩是傳統和天才創作的産物，而不是嚴格意義上的歷史。像對其他一些事物、狀態和現象的描述一樣，荷馬對兵械的描述也帶有“跨時代”的特徵。他所提及的甲械，有的屬於慕凱奈時期的用物，有的則可能出現在以後，甚至晚至荷馬生活的年代。所謂史詩，是詩和史的結合，可以，而且應該有一些不合史實、甚至憑空想像出來的成分。
（1）脛甲
“脛甲堅固的”（euknemides）是形容阿開亞士兵的最常用的程式化飾語，在《伊利亞特》中出現了三十一次。早期的脛 甲可能用生牛皮（甚至粗布）製成，類似萊耳忒斯在葡萄園裏工作時所有的皮質護腿（《奧德賽》24·228—29）。在慕凱奈時代，銅脛甲的使用並不普遍。從原文看，knemis（脛甲）本身並不包含“金屬”的意思。在《伊利亞特》裏，“脛甲青銅的（chalkoknemides）阿開亞人”僅出現一次（7·41）。赫法伊斯托斯用白錫為阿基琉斯打過一副脛甲，但這是神工的鑄品，可能與衆不同。脛甲上安着銀質的拌扣，圍係在腳踝邊。脛甲的功用一可擋禦敵人的擊射，二可保護小腿不受盾牌（遮掩全身的巨盾，見“盾牌”節）的擦傷。弓戰者一般用體積較小的圓盾，所以常常不帶脛甲。
（2）胸甲
儘管到目前為止，考占學家們還拿不出一件實物，證明慕凱奈王朝的武士們——正如荷馬所描述的那樣——是“身披銅甲的”，但鑒於詩人一而再、再而三地使用這一程式化套語（不少於二十四次）的現實，我們很有必要在這個問題上采取嚴肅、謹慎的態度。“身披銅甲的”原文作chalkochitones（穿青銅chiton的）； Chiton在比喻“甲”或“甲衣”。荷馬似乎毫不懷疑阿開亞勇士是“身披銅甲的”（chaleorekon）。赫法伊斯托斯替阿基琉斯打過一副銅甲，歐墨洛斯亦收受過一副銅甲的賞禮。如果說這兩副銅甲一副是神工製作的精品，另一副是饋贈的禮物而不足以說明普通胸甲的質地，那麽，在另一些較為一般的場合，荷馬描述的thorekes（胸甲）亦同樣明顯地包容“金屬製作”的含義。詩人的用詞包括“閃亮的”、“擦得鋥亮的”等等。小埃阿斯和特洛伊人安菲俄斯穿用亞麻布胸甲（中間可能有所充填），但他們並不是一流的戰將。在某些上下文裏，荷馬還提及一種叫做guala的東西（15·530），可能指胸甲前後的銅片，綴嵌在皮革或其他質料的甲面上，以增強thorekes的防護能力。
（3）盾牌
Sakose和aspis可能原指兩種不同的戰盾。Aspis通常是“盾面突鼓的”（omphaloessa）、“溜圓的”（pantos eise，而常常是“碩大、堅固的”（mpga te stibaronte）、“用七層牛皮製作的”（haptaboeion）、和“墻面似的”或“塔一般的”（eute purgos）。到了荷馬生活的年代，aspis和sakos很可能已成為可以互換的同義詞。
據考古發現，慕凱奈時代的戰勇們使用兩種體積碩大、幾可遮掩全身的皮盾，一種為長方形的、雙邊內捲的拱盾，另一種是中腰內收、呈8字形的護盾。二者都有盾帶（telamon），背挎於左肩之上，橫貫於右腋之下；不用時，可以甩至背後。《伊利亞特》中多次提及此類層面碩大的戰盾。埃阿斯身背“墻面似的”巨盾（7·219），而赫剋托耳的盾牌可以遮掩脖子以下、腳踝以上的身體部位（15·646）。荷馬史詩裏的戰後通常是“閃亮的”或“閃光的”，此類飾語明顯地喻指盾面或皮面上的銅層。慕凱奈王朝的後期是否出現帶銅面的皮盾，到目前為止，我們還不能作出確切的答復。
圓形戰盾體積較小，中心突鼓，帶圖紋，有背帶，出現於慕凱奈王朝的後期，可能亦是公元前九至七世紀的史詩詩人們在生活中常見的盾式。
（4）頭盔
荷馬用korus、kunee、truphaleia和pelex等詞表示頭帽或帽盔。這些詞原來可能分指不同的盔樣，但在荷馬史詩裏已具通用的性質。荷馬可在同一個上下文裏，用上述名詞（不是全部）指稱同一頂頭盔。上述四詞中，前二者更較常用。
早期的頭盔一般為皮料製品，遮蓋頭頂、前額和太陽穴，由盔帶緊扣下頜；冠頂插綴馬鬃（確切地說，應為馬毛，包括馬鬃和馬尾），有的還帶角質的或金屬的突角（Phalos）。
在荷馬史詩裏，頭盔一般用料金屬，或帶有金屬的護片。某些飾詞，如chalkeres（銅光閃爍的）和phaeinos（錚亮的）等，明顯地告示頭盔的金屬性質。在若幹上下文裏，荷馬幹脆在頭盔前後加上“銅”字，稱其為“銅盔”（chalkeie korus，kunee pagchalkos）。間忽出現的chalko pareios等詞表明頭盔帶有青銅的頰片。自古以來，學者們對phalos的所指難能取得一致的解釋：有的把它解作“突角”或某種形式的突出物，有的則取“冠脊”，還有的把它等同於“頰片”。頭盔的用料和式樣當不衹限於一種。例如，在第十捲裏，斯拉蘇墨得斯給了狄俄墨得斯一頂帽盔，“牛皮做就，無角，也沒有盔冠”（257—58）；而墨裏俄奈斯則給俄底修斯戴上一頂皮盔，“外面是一排排雪白的牙片”，“中間墊着一層絨氈”（262—65）。此種皮裏牙片面的頭盔在出土的慕凱奈文物中已有發現。
（5）劍
Xiphos、aor和phasganon三詞均喻“劍”，意思上沒有明顯的區別。在同一個上下文裏，荷馬曾用這三個詞表指同一柄利劍。在荷馬史詩裏，劍戰的場合不多，亦沒有大段的描述。“嵌綴銀釘的”（arguloelon）一詞把我們帶到遙遠的慕凱奈時代。戰劍青銅，帶鞘，有背帶，可斜挎肩頭。
（6）槍矛
長槍是《伊利亞特》中的主要兵器。在程式化的“武裝赴戰”場景中，阿基琉斯操提一桿長槍（egchos），而阿伽門農和帕特羅剋洛斯則各拿兩支槍矛（doUle）。 EgChO6較為粗重，常以“碩大、粗長、沉重（的）”為飾詞。在第十六捲裏，帕特羅剋洛斯穿起阿基琉斯的鎧甲，但卻不曾抓握他的槍矛，“那玩藝……（除了阿基琉斯）阿開亞人中誰也提拿不得”（141—42）。一般認為，egchos用主要用於近戰刺捅，而douree則主要用於遠距離的投射。不過，在《伊利亞特》裏，這兩個詞通常可以互換使用，其“自由”程度不下於xiphos和phasganon的替換。
（7）弓箭（和弓手）
荷馬對弓的描述不多。在第四捲裏，他告訴我們，潘達羅斯的彎弓取自一頭自打的野山羊的叉角（105—6）。在《伊利亞特》裏，尤其是在特洛伊盟軍方面，弓（toxon）的使用相當普遍。在人員龐雜的兵隊裏，agkulotoxoi（弓手）似乎已是一個專門的兵種。魯基亞人、卡裏亞人和邁俄尼亞人都是使弓的兵勇，而魯基亞首領潘達羅斯更是一位知名的好弓手。特洛伊人中，帕裏斯。赫勒諾斯和多隆等都是攜弓的戰將。阿開亞人擅使長槍，弓手相對稀少，主要有菲洛剋忒忒斯、墨裏俄奈斯和丟剋羅斯。在《伊利亞特》裏，弓箭似乎是一種相對古舊的兵器；詩人顯然以為“手對手”的攻戰更能表現英雄搏殺的壯烈。在第十一捲裏，狄俄墨得斯對使弓的帕裏斯似乎頗有微詞（385）。
箭矢一般為銅頭，但潘達羅斯的羽箭卻以鐵為鏃。
（8）戰車
戰車（diphros）一般為木架結構，邊圍和底面用皮條綁紮，既可減輕車身的重量（一人即可頂擡，10·504—5），又可消緩跑動時的顛簸。戰車做工精緻，有的甚至帶有金銀的鑲飾（10·438）。神用的diphros，如赫拉的戰車，幾乎是金、銀、銅的拼合（5·722—31）。
在《伊利亞特》裏，戰車的作用相當於今天的兵車。馭馬將戰車拉至戰地，壯士（通常衹有一人）從車上跳下，徒步介入戰鬥，而馭手則勒馬留在後面，等待戰勇的回歸。作為一種定型的戰式，它的産生大概多少帶有詩人“創作”的成分。荷馬應該不會不知道diphros的作戰功用（除了運兵以外），但在《伊利亞特》裏，他對這方面的描述卻衹有絶無僅有的一例。在第四捲裏，老輩人物奈斯托耳命囑他的部屬：誰也不許單獨出擊或退卻；交手時，車上的鬥士要用長槍刺捅敵人（303—7）。奈斯托耳宣稱，過去，這是一種相當成功的戰式。
The Iliad is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems traditionally attributed to Homer. The poem is commonly dated to the 8th or 7th century BC, and many scholars believe it is the oldest extant work of literature in the ancient Greek language, making it the first work of European literature. The existence of a single author for the poems is disputed as the poems themselves show evidence of a long oral tradition and hence, possible multiple authors.
The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilion, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word Iliad means "pertaining to Ilion" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Turkish "Truva", in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia, Troiae, f.), the state centered around Ilium, over which the names Ilium and Troy are often used interchangeably.
The story of the Iliad
The Iliad begins with these lines:
Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus,
the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans...
The first word of Homer's Iliad is the ancient Greek word μῆνιν (mēnin), rage or wrath. This word announces the major theme of the Iliad: the wrath of Achilles. When Agamemnon, the commander of the Greek forces at Troy, dishonors Achilles by taking Briseis, a slave woman given to Achilles as a prize of war, Achilles becomes enraged and withdraws from the fighting until Book XIX. Without him and his powerful Myrmidon warriors, the Greeks suffer defeat by the Trojans, almost to the point of losing their will to fight. Achilles re-enters the fighting when his cousin, Patroclus, is killed by the Trojan prince Hector. Achilles slaughters many Trojans and kills Hector. In his rage, he then refuses to return Hector's body and instead defiles it. Priam, the father of Hector, ransoms his son's body, and the Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector.
Homer devotes long passages to frank, blow-by-blow descriptions of combat. He gives the names of the fighters, recounts their taunts and battle-cries, and gruesomely details the ways in which they kill and wound one another. Often, the death of a hero only escalates the violence, as the two sides battle for his armor and corpse, or his close companions launch a punitive attack on his killer. The lucky ones are sometimes whisked away by friendly charioteers or the intervention of a god, but Homeric warfare is still some of the most bloody and brutal in literature.
The Iliad has a very strong religious and supernatural element. Both sides in the war are extremely pious, and both have heroes descended from divine beings. They constantly sacrifice to the gods and consult priests and prophets to decide their actions. For their own part, the gods frequently join in battles, both by advising and protecting their favorites and even by participating in combat against humans and other gods.
The Iliad's huge cast of characters connects the Trojan War to many ancient myths, such as Jason and the Argonauts, the Seven Against Thebes, and the Labors of Hercules. Many ancient Greek myths exist in multiple versions, so Homer had some freedom to choose among them to suit his story. See Greek mythology for more detail.
The action of the Iliad covers only a few weeks of the tenth and final year of the Trojan War. It does not cover the background and early years of the war (Paris' abduction of Helen from King Menelaus) nor its end (the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy). Other epic poems, collectively known as the Epic Cycle or cyclic epics, narrated many of these events; these poems only survive in fragments and later descriptions. See Trojan War for a summary of the events of the war.
Synopsis
As the poem begins, the Greeks have captured Chryseis, the daughter of Apollo's priest Chryses, and given her as a prize to Agamemnon. In response, Apollo has sent a plague against the Greeks, who compel Agamemnon to restore Chryseis to her father to stop the sickness. In her place, Agamemnon takes Briseis, whom the Achaeans had given to Achilles as a spoil of war. Achilles, the greatest warrior of the age, follows the advice of his goddess mother, Thetis, and withdraws from battle in revenge.
In counterpoint to Achilles' pride and arrogance stands the Trojan prince Hector, son of King Priam, a husband and father who fights to defend his city and his family. With Achilles on the sidelines, Hector leads successful counterattacks against the Greeks, who have built a fortified camp around their ships pulled up on the Trojan beach. The best remaining Greek fighters, including Odysseus and Diomedes, are wounded, and the gods favor the Trojans. Patroclus, impersonating Achilles by wearing his armor, finally leads the Myrmidons back into battle to save the ships from being burned. The death of Patroclus at the hands of Hector brings Achilles back to the war for revenge, and he slays Hector in single combat. Hector's father, King Priam, later comes to Achilles alone (but aided by Hermes) to ransom his son's body, and Achilles is moved to pity; the funeral of Hector ends the poem.
Book summaries
Book 1: Nine years into the war, Agamemnon seizes Briseis, the concubine of Achilles, since he has had to give away his own; Achilles withdraws from the fighting in anger; in Olympus, the gods argue about the outcome of the war
Book 2: Agamemnon pretends to order the Greeks home to test their resolve; Odysseus encourages the Greeks to keep fighting; Catalogue of Ships, Catalogue of Trojans and Allies
Book 3: Paris challenges Menelaus to single combat over Helen while she watches from the walls of Troy with Priam; Paris is quickly overmatched by Menelaus, but is rescued from death by Aphrodite, and Menelaus is seen as the winner.
Book 4: The truce is broken and battle begins
Book 5: Diomedes has an aristeia (a period of supremacy in battle) and wounds Aphrodite and Ares
Book 6: Glaucus and Diomedes greet each other during a truce; Hector returns to Troy and speaks to his wife Andromache
Book 7: Hector battles Ajax
Book 8: The gods withdraw from the battle
Book 9: Called The Embassy to Achilles. Agamemnon retreats; his overtures to Achilles are spurned
Book 10: Called the Doloneia. Diomedes and Odysseus go on a spying mission, kill the Trojan Dolon.
Book 11: Paris wounds Diomedes; Achilles sends Patroclus on a mission
Book 12: The Greeks retreat to their camp and are besieged by the Trojans
Book 13: Poseidon encourages the Greeks
Book 14: Hera helps Poseidon assist the Greeks; Deception of Zeus
Book 15: Zeus stops Poseidon from interfering
Book 16: Called the Patrocleia. Patroclus borrows Achilles' armour, enters battle, kills Sarpedon and then is killed by Hector
Book 17: The armies fight over the body and armour of Patroclus
Book 18: Achilles learns of the death of Patroclus and receives a new suit of armour. The Shield of Achilles is described at length
Book 19: Achilles is reconciled with Agamemnon and enters battle
Book 20: The gods join the battle; Achilles tries to kill Aeneas
Book 21: Achilles does battle with the river Scamander and encounters Hector in front of the Trojan gates
Book 22: Achilles kills Hector and drags his body back to the Greek camp
Book 23: Funeral games for Patroclus
Book 24: Called The Ransoming of Hector. Priam, the King of the Trojans, secretly enters the Greek camp. He begs Achilles for Hector's body. Achilles grants it to him, and it is taken away and burned on a pyre
After the Iliad
Although the Iliad scatters foreshadowings of certain events subsequent to the funeral of Hector, and there is a general sense that the Trojans are doomed, Homer does not set out a detailed account of the fall of Troy. For the story as developed in later Greek and Roman poetry and drama, see Trojan War. The other Homeric poem, the Odyssey, is the story of Odysseus' long journey home from Troy; the two poems between them incorporate many references forward and back and overlap very little, so that despite their narrow narrative focus they are a surprisingly complete exploration of the themes of the Troy story.
Major characters
The Iliad contains a sometimes confusingly great number of characters. The latter half of the second book (often called the Catalogue of Ships) is devoted entirely to listing the various commanders. Many of the battle scenes in the Iliad feature bit characters who are quickly slain. See Trojan War for a detailed list of participating armies and warriors.
The Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) - the word Hellenes, which would today be translated as Greeks, is not used by Homer. Also called Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives ('Aργεĩοι).
The Trojan men
Polydamas, a young Trojan commander who sometimes figures as a foil for Hector by proving cool-headed and prudent when Hector charges ahead. Polydamas gives the Trojans sound advice, but Hector seldom acts on it.
Agenor, a Trojan warrior who attempts to fight Achilles in Book 21. Agenor delays Achilles long enough for the Trojan army to flee inside Troy's walls.
Dolon (Δόλων), a Trojan who is sent to spy on the Achaean camp in Book 10.
Antenor (mythology), a Trojan nobleman, advisor to King Priam, and father of many Trojan warriors. Antenor argues that Helen should be returned to Menelaus in order to end the war, but Paris refuses to give her up.
Polydorus, a Trojan prince and son of Priam and Laothoe.
The Trojan women
Hecuba (Ἑκάβη), Queen of Troy, wife of Priam, mother of Hector, Cassandra, Paris etc
Helen (Ἑλένη), former Queen of Sparta and wife of Menelaus, now espoused to Paris
Andromache (Ἀνδρομάχη), Hector's wife and mother of their infant son, Astyanax (Ἀστυάναξ)
Cassandra (Κασσάνδρα), daughter of Priam, prophetess, first courted and then cursed by Apollo. As her punishment for offending him, she accurately foresees the fate of Troy, including her own death and the deaths of her entire family, but does not have the power to do anything about it.
The Olympian deities, principally Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hades, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Hermes and Poseidon, as well as the lesser figures Eris, Thetis, and Proteus appear in the Iliad as advisers to and manipulators of the human characters. All except Zeus become personally involved in the fighting at one point or another (See Theomachy).
Technical features
The poem is written in dactylic hexameter. The Iliad comprises 15,693 lines of verse. Later ancient Greeks divided it into twenty-four books, or scrolls, and this convention has lasted to the present day with little change.
Themes
Nostos
Nostos (Greek: νόστος) (pl. nostoi) is the ancient Greek word for homecoming. The word νόστος is used seven times in the Iliad (2.155,251, 9.413,434,622, 10.509, 16.82) and the theme is heavily explored throughout Greek literature, especially in the fortunes of the Atreidae returning from the Trojan War. The Odyssey, dealing with the return of Odysseus, is the most famous of these stories, but many surrounding other characters such as Agamemnon and Menelaus exist as well. In the Iliad, nostos cannot be obtained without the sacking of Troy, which is the driving force behind Agamemnon's will to win at any cost.
Kleos
Kleos (Greek: κλέος) is ancient Greek concept of glory that is earned through battle.[1] For many characters, most notably Odysseus, their kleos comes with their victorious return home (Nostos).[2] However, Achilles must choose between the two. In one of the most poignant scenes in the Iliad (9.410-416), Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax about the two fates (διχθαδίας κήρας 9.411) he must choose between.[3]. The passage reads:
μήτηρ γάρ τέ μέ φησι θεὰ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα (410)
διχθαδίας κῆρας φερέμεν θανάτοιο τέλος δέ.
εἰ μέν κ’ αὖθι μένων Τρώων πόλιν ἀμφιμάχωμαι,
ὤλετο μέν μοι νόστος, ἀτὰρ κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται•
εἰ δέ κεν οἴκαδ’ ἵκωμι φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν,
ὤλετό μοι κλέος ἐσθλόν, ἐπὶ δηρὸν δέ μοι αἰὼν (415)
ἔσσεται, οὐδέ κέ μ’ ὦκα τέλος θανάτοιο κιχείη.[1]
Richmond Lattimore, the renowned classical scholar, translates the passage as follows:
For my mother Thetis the goddess of silver feet tells me
I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death. Either,
if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans,
my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting;
but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers,
the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life
left for me, and my end in death will not come to me quickly.
[2]
Here Achilles acknowledges that he must lose his nostos in order to obtain his kleos. However, Achilles is not offered just kleos, but kleos aphthiton (Greek: κλέος ἄφθιτον), or "fame imperishable."[4] The word ἄφθιτον is used five other times throughout the Iliad (2.46, 5.724, 13.22, 14.238, 18.370), each time describing an immortal object, specifically Agamemnon's sceptre, the wheel of Hebe's chariot, the house of Poseidon, Zeus's throne, and the house of Hephaistos, respectively.Lattimore translates the word to mean 'immortal forever' or 'imperishable forever.' Achilles is the only mortal to ever be referred to in this way, which highlights the immense glory that awaits him if he stays and fights at Troy.
Timê
Related to kleos is the concept of timê (Greek: тιμή), usually translated as "respect" or "honor". One's timê is properly determined by one's station in life, or one's accomplishments (e.g., on the battlefield). The Greeks' troubles begin when Agamemnon dishonors (Book 1.11) the priest Chryses' attempt to ransom back his captive daughter; this insult prompts Chryses to call a plague down on the Achaeans. Later, Achilles' ruinous anger with Agamemnon stems from the disrespect (1.171) he feels the Argive king has shown him despite Achilles' obvious value to the Greek army.
The Wrath of Achilles
As mentioned above, the first word of the Iliad is the Greek μῆνιν (mēnin), meaning rage or wrath. In this Homer is immediately announcing a main theme throughout the epic, the wrath of Achilles. Achilles' rage and vanity, which sometimes seem almost childlike, drive the plot, from the Greeks' faltering in battle and the death of Patroclus to the slaying of Hector and the eventual fall of Troy, which is not explicitly depicted in the Iliad but is alluded to numerous times. The wrath of Achilles is first displayed in Book I in a meeting between the Greek kings and the seer Kalchas. Agamemnon had dishonored Chryses, the Trojan priest of Apollo, by taking his daughter Chryseis and refusing to return her even when offered "gifts beyond count."[3] Chryses then prayed to Apollo for help, who rained arrows upon the Greeks for nine days. At the meeting Achilles accuses Agamemnon of being "greediest for gain of all men."[4] At this Agamemnon replies:
"But here is my threat to you.
Even as Phoibos Apollo is taking away my Chryseis.
I shall convey her back in my own ship, with my own
followers; but I shall take the fair-cheeked Briseis,
your prize, I myself going to your shelter, that you may learn well
how much greater I am than you, and another man may shrink back
from likening himself to me and contending against me."[5]
After this remark Achilles' anger can only be stayed by Athena and he vows to never take orders from Agamemnon again. Later, Achilles cries to his mother Thetis, who convinces Zeus on Olympus to favor the Trojans until Agamemnon restores Achilles' rights. This dooms the possibility of Greek victory in the near future, and the Trojans under Hector almost push the Greeks back into the sea in Book XII, causing Agamemnon to contemplate a defeated return to Greece.
"The Wrath of Achilles" turns the tide of the war again when his closest friend and possible lover Patrocles is killed in battle by Hector while wearing Achilles' armor. When Nestor informs him, Achilles mourns grievously, tearing out his hair and dirtying his face. During his mourning, his mother Thetis again comes to comfort him. Achilles tells her:
So it was here that the lord of men Agamemnon angered me.
Still, we will let all this be a thing of the past, and for all our
sorrow beat down by force the anger deeply within us.
Now I shall go, to overtake that killer of a dear life,
Hektor; then I will accept my own death, at whatever
time Zeus wishes to bring it about, and the other immortals.[6]
In his desire for vengeance Achilles is even willing to accept the prospect of his own death as a reasonable price to avenge his lost friend. The rage of Achilles over the death of Patrocles persuaded him to enter battle again, dooming both Hector and Troy. After killing and wounding numerous Trojans, Achilles finds Hector on the battlefield in Book XXII and chases him around the walls of Troy three times before slaying him. Achilles, in his final show of rage, then drags the body on the back of his chariot back to the Greek camp where he mourns for Patroclus. Achilles later returns the body of Hector to the Trojan king Priam when he secretly infiltrates the Greek and begs Achilles for the body of his son.
Fate
Fate is shown to be a driving force behind many of the events of the Iliad. It is obeyed by both gods and men once it is set, and neither seems able (or willing) to change it. The forming of Fate is unknown, but it is told by The Fates and seers such as Calchas, and mentioned by gods and men throughout the epic. It was considered heroic to accept one's fate honorably and cowardly to attempt to avoid it.[5] However, fate does not predetermine all human action. Instead, it primarily refers to the outcome or end, such as a man's life or a city such as Troy.[6] For instance, before killing him, Hector calls Patroclus a fool for trying to conquer him in battle. Patroclus retorts:
No, deadly destiny, with the son of Leto, has killed me,
and of men it was Euphorbos; you are only my third slayer.
And put away in your heart this other thing that I tell you.
You yourself are not one who shall live long, but now already
death and powerful destiny are standing beside you,
to go down under the hands of Aiakos' great son, Achilleus.[7]
Here Patroclus alludes to his own fate as well as Hector's to die at the hands of Achilles. Upon killing Hector, Achilles is fated to die at Troy as well. All of these outcomes are predetermined, and although each character has free will in his actions he knows that eventually his end has already been set.
In some places it is ambiguous whether the gods, namely [Zeus], have the ability to alter fate. This situation first appears in Book XVI when Zeus' mortal son, Sarpedon, is about to be slain in battle by Patroclus. Zeus says:
'Ah me, that it is destined that the dearest of men, Sarpedon,
must go down under the hands of Menoitios' son Patroclus.[8]
When Zeus mentions his dilemma to Hera, she answers him:
'Majesty, son of Kronos, what sort of thing have you spoken?
Do you wish to bring back a man who is mortal, one long since
doomed by his destiny, from ill-sounding death and release him?
Do it, then; but not all the rest of us gods shall approve you.[9]
When faced with having to decide between losing his beloved son and abiding by fate, even Zeus, the king of the gods, decides to let the matter pass as it has been already decided. This same motif is used again when Zeus contemplates whether to spare Hector, whom he loves and respects. This time, grey-eyed Athena answers him:
'Father of the shining bold, dark misted, what is this you said?
Do you wish to bring back a man who is mortal, one long since
doomed by his destiny, from ill-sounding death and release him?
Do it, then; but not all the rest of us gods shall approve you.[10]
Again Zeus seems able to change fate but does not, choosing instead to abide by the outcomes decided long before that day's events.
Fate, working in the other direction, spares Aeneas from death at the hands of Achilles. Apollo convinced Aeneas to confront Achilles during battle, although Achilles was too strong to be defeated. Seeing Aeneas outmatched and in peril, Poseidon speaks out among the immortals:
But come, let us ourselves get him away from death, for fear
the son of Kronos may be angered if now Achilleus
kills this man. It is destined that he shall be the survivor,
that the generation of Dardanos shall not die...[11]
Aeneas has been fated to survive the Trojan War and because of this is saved in battle from Achilles. Although it is unclear whether the gods have the power to change fate, they repeatedly make a conscious effort to maintain fate even in opposition to their personal allegiances. This shows that although its origins are mysterious, fate plays a huge role in the outcome of events in the Iliad. It is the one power that lies even above the gods and shapes the outcome of events more than any other force in the epic.
The question of fate also hints at the primeval division of the world by the three sons of Cronus, when they toppled their father. Zeus was given the air and sky, Poseidon the waters and Hades the Underworld, where the dead go. The earth per se was given jointly to all three, hence Poseidon may flood it, or convulse it with earthquakes, and Hades is free to roam it and claim those who are to die and descend to his own domain. Furthermore the Three Fates, deities of obscure and possibly far older origin than the Olympian gods, were often shown as having the only say as to the length of the lives of mortals, a matter over which the gods were unable to intervene.
The Iliad as oral tradition
The Iliad and the Odyssey were considered by Greeks of the classical age, and later, as the most important works in Ancient Greek literature, and were the basis of Greek pedagogy in antiquity. As the center of the rhapsode's repertoire, their recitation was a central part of Greek religious festivals. The book would be spoken or sung all night (modern readings last around 14 hours), with audiences coming and going for parts they particularly enjoyed.
Throughout much of their history, scholars of the written word treated the Iliad and Odyssey as literary poems, and Homer as a writer much like them. However, in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, scholars began to question this assumption. Milman Parry, a classical scholar, was intrigued by peculiar features of Homeric style: in particular the stock epithets and the often extensive repetition of words, phrase and even whole chunks of text. He argued that these features were artifacts of oral composition. The poet employs stock phrases because of the ease with which they could be applied to a hexameter line. Specifically, Parry observed that Homer complemented each main character's name with a specific stock epithet such that the two-word unit filled half a line. Therefore, he would only ever have to compose afresh half a line – the other half could be automatically completed with a formulaic phrase like “resourceful Odysseus.”[12] Taking this theory, Parry travelled in Yugoslavia, studying the local oral poetry. In his research he observed oral poets employing stock phrases and repetition to assist with the challenge of composing a poem orally and improvisationally. Parry's line of inquiry opened up a wider study of oral modes of thought and communication and their evolution under the impact of writing and print by Eric Havelock, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong and others. In fact, Parry's student Albert Lord, in his landmark work The Singer of Tales, detects similarities between the tragic story of Patroclus and the death of Enkidu in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. In the book, Lord refutes the idea that the Patroclus story-line upsets the "established" Homeric pattern of "wrath, bride-stealing, and rescue"[13] and says that the structure of the Iliad is dictated by "a careful analysis of the repetition of thematic patterns."[14]
It should be noted, however, that the use of repetition and stock phrases has not necessarily been interpreted as a restriction on Homer's originality and capacity to rework the story as he saw fit. Professor James Armstrong, in his paper The Arming Motif in the Iliad, argues that even formulaic sections of Homer's text contain enriched meaning through illustrative word choice. He points to what he refers to as the “arming motif;” characters such as Paris, Agamemnon, Patroclus, and Achilles are all described while being armed in a formulaic, long-winded fashion. Armstrong writes that this is needed to “heighten the importance of…an impressive moment” while the repetition “creates an atmosphere of smoothness.” Yet each time, he modifies elements of the passages – for example, when describing Patroclus[15], he changes from a positive to a negative turn of phrase, which Armstrong explains as demonstrating that Patroclus is not Achilles, foreshadowing Patroclus’ death.[16]
One of the effects that oral tradition has had on the Iliad is that the poem sometimes has inconsistency. For example, Aphrodite is described as “laughter-loving” even when she is in pain from the wound given to her by Diomedes (5.375). Oral tradition has also been a reason attributed for the Iliad's break from the view of the gods the Greeks in Homer's time actually had. In the Iliad, Mycenaean elements have become mixed up with Dark Age elements. For example, the most powerful Olympic gods have been compared to the Dark Ages’ hereditary basilees nobles who ruled over lesser social ranks, paralleling lesser gods like Scamander[17].
The relationship of Achilles and Patroclus
The precise nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus has been the subject of some dispute in both the classical period and modern times. In the Iliad, it is clear that the two heroes have a deep and extremely meaningful friendship, but the evidence of a romantic or sexual element is equivocal. Commentators from the classical period to today have tended to interpret the relationship through the lens of their own cultures. Thus, in fifth-century Athens the relationship was commonly interpreted as pederastic, since pederasty was an accepted part of Athenian society. Present day readers are more likely to interpret the two heroes either as non-sexual war buddies or as a similarly-aged homosexual couple.
Warfare in the Iliad
Even though Mycene was a maritime power that managed to launch over a thousand ships and Troy at the very least had built the fleet with which Paris took Helen,[18] no sea-battle takes place throughout the conflict and Phereclus, the shipbuilder of Troy, fights on foot.[19]
The heroes of the Iliad are dressed in elaborate and well described armor. They ride to the battle field on a chariot, throw a spear to the enemy formation and then dismount, use their other spear and engage in personal combat. Telamonian Ajax's carried a large tower-shaped shield (σάκος) that was used not only to cover him but also his brother:
Ninth came Teucer, stretching his curved bow.
He stood beneath the shield of Ajax, son of Telamon.
As Ajax cautiously pulled his shield aside,
Teucer would peer out quickly, shoot off an arrow,
hit someone in the crowd, dropping that soldier
right where he stood, ending his life—then he'd duck back,
crouching down by Ajax, like a child beside its mother.
Ajax would then conceal him with his shining shield.
(Iliad 8.267–272, translated by Ian Johnston)
Ajax's shield was heavy and difficult to carry. It was thus more suited for defence than offence. His cousin Achilles on the other hand had a large round shield that he used along with his famous spear with great success against the Trojans. Round or eight-sided was the shield of the simple soldier. Unlike the heroes they rarely had a breast-plate and relied exclusively on the shield for defence. They would form very dense formations:
Just as a man constructs a wall for some high house,
using well-fitted stones to keep out forceful winds,
that's how close their helmets and bossed shields lined up,
shield pressing against shield, helmet against helmet
man against man. On the bright ridges of the helmets,
horsehair plumes touched when warriors moved their heads.
That's how close they were to one another.
(Iliad 16.213–7, translated by Ian Johnston)
Once Homer actually calls the formation phalanx though the true phalanx formation appears in the 7th century BC.[20] Was this the way that the true Trojan War was fought? Most scholars do not believe so.[21] The chariot was the main weapon in battles of the time, like the Battle of Kadesh. There is evidence from the Dendra armor and paintings at the palace of Pylos that the Mycenaeans used two-man chariots, with the principal rider armed with a long spear, unlike the Hittite three-man chariots whose riders were armed with shorter spears or the two-man chariots armed with arrows used by Egyptians and Syrians. Homer is aware of the use of chariots as a main weapon. Nestor places his charioteers in front of the rest of his troop and tells them:
In your eagerness to engage the Trojans,
don't any of you charge ahead of others,
trusting in your strength and horsemanship.
And don't lag behind. That will hurt our charge.
Any man whose chariot confronts an enemy's
should thrust with his spear at him from there.
That's the most effective tactic, the way
men wiped out city strongholds long ago—
their chests full of that style and spirit.
(Iliad 4.301–309, translated by Ian Johnston)
Mythological Characters in the Iliad
Although gods, goddesses, and demi-gods play a large role in the plot of the Iliad, scholars note that the portrayal of gods by Homer represents a break from the ways in which Greeks actually observed their religion. The gods of the Iliad were crafted to suit the author's needs in telling his story instead of to give an ideal representation of how the Greeks viewed their mythological figures. Herodotus, the classical historian, even went so far as to say that Homer and his contemporary, Hesiod, first named and described the characteristics and appearances of the gods.[22]
In her book, Greek Gods: Human Lives, scholar Mary Lefkowitz discusses the relevance of the gods' actions in the Iliad and attempts to answer the question of whether their actions are applicable for their own sakes or if they are merely a metaphorical representation of human characteristics. Many classic authors, such as Thucydides and Plato, were only interested in the Homeric characters of gods as "a way of talking about human life rather than a description or a truth."[23] She argues that, if one looks at the Greek gods as religious elements rather than metaphors, their existence is what allowed Greeks to be so intellectually open. Without any established dogma or single holy book, Greeks could design gods that fit any description of religion.[24]
The Iliad in subsequent arts and literature
Subjects from the Trojan War were a favourite among ancient Greek dramatists. Aeschylus' trilogy, the Oresteia, comprising Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides, follows the story of Agamemnon after his return from the war.
William Shakespeare used the plot of the Iliad as a source material for his play Troilus and Cressida, but focused the love story of Troilus, a Trojan prince and a son of Priam, and a Trojan woman Cressida. The play, often considered to be a comedy, reverses traditional views on events of the Trojan War and depicts Achilles as a coward, Ajax as a dull, unthinking mercenary, etc.
The 1954 Broadway musical The Golden Apple by librettist John Treville Latouche and composer Jerome Moross was freely adapted from the Iliad and the Odyssey, re-setting the action to America's Washington state in the years after the Spanish-American War, with events inspired by the Iliad in Act One and events inspired by the Odyssey in Act Two.
Christa Wolf's 1983 novel Kassandra is a critical engagement with the stuff of the Iliad. Wolf's narrator is Cassandra, whose thoughts we hear at the moment just before her murder by Clytemnestra in Sparta. Wolf's narrator presents a feminist's view of the war, and of war in general. Cassandra's story is accompanied by four essays which Wolf delivered as the Frankfurter Poetik-Vorlesungen. The essays present Wolf's concerns as a writer and rewriter of this canonical story and show the genesis of the novel through Wolf's own readings and in a trip she took to Greece.
A number of comic series have re-told the legend of the Trojan War. The most inclusive may be Age of Bronze, a comprehensive retelling by writer/artist Eric Shanower that incorporates a broad spectrum of literary traditions and archaeological findings. Started in 1999, it is projected to number seven volumes.
The Washington D.C. based painter, David Richardson, began a series of paintings in 2002 based on the Iliad and titled The Trojan War Series. Each painting in the series is intended to be a monument to a character in the Iliad and bears a name taken from the poem. As of October 2007, Richardson had completed over eighty paintings in the series and was still not finished with the body of work.
Power metal band Blind Guardian composed a 14 minute song about the Iliad, "And Then There Was Silence", appearing on the 2002 album A Night at the Opera.
Power metal band Manowar composed a 28 minute medley "Achilles, Agony and Ecstasy in Eight Parts" in their 1992 album, The Triumph of Steel.
An epic science fiction adaptation/tribute by acclaimed author Dan Simmons titled Ilium was released in 2003. The novel received a Locus Award for best science fiction novel of 2003.
A loose film adaptation of the Iliad, Troy, was released in 2004, starring Brad Pitt as Achilles, Orlando Bloom as Paris, Eric Bana as Hector, Sean Bean as Odysseus and Brian Cox as Agamemnon. It was directed by German-born Wolfgang Petersen. The movie only loosely resembles the Homeric version, with the supernatural elements of the story were deliberately expunged, except for one scene that includes Achilles' sea nymph mother, Thetis (although her supernatural nature is never specifically stated, and she is aged as though human).
Though the film received mixed reviews, it was a commercial success, particularly in international sales. It grossed $133 million in the United States and $497 million worldwide, placing it in the 50 top-grossing movies of all time.
S.M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time series contains numerous characters who are clearly the "original versions" of those appearing in the Iliad; the twentieth-century characters are quite aware of this and make rather frequent reference to it. One, for example, comments that "a big horse ought to be present at the fall of Troy", and another uses the glory that the poem would have brought its protagonists to turn one of them against his master.
Translations into English
The Iliad has been translated into English for centuries. George Chapman's 16th century translation was praised by John Keats in his sonnet, On First Looking into Chapman's Homer. Alexander Pope's translation into rhymed pentameter was published in 1715. William Cowper's 1791 version in forceful Miltonic blank verse is highly regarded. In his lectures On Translating Homer Matthew Arnold commented on the problems of translating the Iliad and on the major translations available in 1861. In 1870 the American poet William Cullen Bryant published a "simple, faithful" (Van Wyck Brooks) version in blank verse.
There are several twentieth century English translations. Richmond Lattimore's version attempts to reproduce, line for line, the rhythm and phrasing of the original poem. Robert Fitzgerald has striven to situate the Iliad in the musical forms of English poetry. Robert Fagles and Stanley Lombardo both follow the Greek closely but are bolder in adding dramatic significance to conventional and formulaic Homeric language. Lombardo has chosen an American idiom that is much more colloquial than the other translations.
Partial list of English translations
This is a partial list of translations into English of Homer's Iliad. For a more complete list, see English translations of Homer.
George Chapman, 1598 and 1615 - verse
John Ogilby, 1660
Thomas Hobbes, 1676 - verse
John Ozell, William Broome and William Oldisworth, 1712
Alexander Pope, 1713 - verse: full text
James Macpherson, 1773
William Cowper, 1791: full text
Lord Derby, 1864 - verse: full text
William Cullen Bryant, 1870
Walter Leaf, Andrew Lang and Ernest Myers, 1873 - prose: full text
Samuel Butler, 1898 - prose: full text
A.T. Murray, 1924
Alexander Falconer, 1933
Sir William Marris, 1934 - verse
W.H.D. Rouse, 1938 - prose
E.V. Rieu, 1950 - prose
Alston Chase and William G. Perry, 1950 - prose
Richmond Lattimore, 1951 - verse
Ennis Rees, 1963 - verse
Robert Fitzgerald, 1974
Martin Hammond, 1987
Robert Fagles, 1990
Stanley Lombardo, 1997
Ian Johnston, 2002 - verse: full text
Notes
- Iliad IX 410-416
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.13.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.122.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.181-7.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 18.111-116.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.849-54.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.433-4.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.440-3.
- Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 22.178-81.
- Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 20.300-4.
- Porter, John. “The Iliad as Oral Formulaic Poetry.” The Iliad as Oral Formulaic Poetry. 8 May 2006. University of Saskatchewan. Accessed 26 November 2007.
- Lord, Albert. The Singer of Tales Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. p. 190
- Lord, Albert. The Singer of Tales Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. p. 195
- Iliad XVI 130-154
- Armstrong, James I. The Arming Motif in the Iliad. The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 79, No. 4. (1958), pp. 337-354.
- Toohey, Peter. Reading Epic: An Introduction to the Ancient Narrative. New Fetter Lane, London: Routledge, 1992.
- Iliad 3.45–50
- Iliad 5.59–65
- Iliad 6.6
- Tomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine Dark Sea, Why the Greeks Matter, New York 2003
- Homer's Iliad: Classical Technology Center. http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/homer.htm
- Lefkowitz, Mary. Greek Gods: Human Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003
- Oliver Taplin. "Bring Back the Gods." The New York Times. 14 December 2003.
|
