 伊利亚特
特洛伊战争和史诗系列
久逝的岁月给特洛伊战争蒙上了一层神秘的色彩。但是，包括希罗多德和修昔底得在内的历史学家们一般都不否认这场战争的真实性，虽然对它进行的年代，自古以来便没有一种统一的定说。按希罗多德推测，特洛伊战争进行的年代约在公元前1250年左右，[●]而根据Mor Pchum的记载，希腊人攻陷特洛伊的时间应在前1290—8年间。近代某些学者将破城时间估放在前1370年左右。希腊学者厄拉托塞奈斯（Eratosthenes，生于前275年）的考证和提法得到一批学人的赞同——他的定取是前1193—84年。大体说来，西方学术界一般倾向于将特洛伊战争的进行年代拟定在公元前十三到十二世纪，即慕凯奈（或迈锡尼）王朝（前1600—1100年）的后期。
●《历史》或《希波战争史》2·145·4。
根据故事和传说，特洛伊（即伊利昂）是一座富有的城堡，坐落在小亚细亚的西北部，濒临赫勒斯庞特的水流。国王普里阿摩斯之子帕里斯（即亚历克山德罗斯）曾出游远洋，抵斯巴达，备受王者墨奈劳斯的款待。其后，他将墨奈劳斯之妻海伦带出斯巴达，返回特洛伊。希腊（包括它的“殖民地”）各地的王者和首领们于是风聚云集，意欲进兵特洛伊，夺回海伦。舰队汇聚奥利斯，由慕凯奈国王阿伽门农统领。经过一番周折，希腊联军登岸特洛伊，兵临城下，但一连九年不得破获。在第十年里，阿伽门农和联军中最好的战将阿基琉斯发生争执，后者由此罢兵不战，使特洛伊人（由赫克托耳统领）节节获胜，兵抵希腊人的海船和营棚。赫克托耳阵杀帕特罗克洛斯后，阿基琉斯重返战场，逼回特洛伊军伍，战杀赫克托耳。其后，阿基琉斯亦战死疆场。按照神意，阿开亚人（即希腊人）最终攻下特洛伊，荡劫了这座城堡。首领们历经磨难，回返家园，面对新的挑战，新的生活。
如果说特洛伊战争是一件确有其事的史实，世代相传的口述和不可避免的“创新”已使它成为一个内容丰富、五彩缤纷、充满神话和传奇的故事或故事系列。继荷马以后，诗人们又以特洛伊战争为背景，创作了一系列史诗，构成了一个有系统的史诗群体，即有关特洛伊战争（或以它为背景）的史诗系列。[●]“系列”中，《库普利亚》（Kypria，十一卷）描写战争的起因，即发生在《伊利亚特》之前的事件；《埃西俄丕斯》（Aethiopis，五卷）和《小伊利亚特》（Ilias Mikra，四卷）以及《特洛伊失陷》（Niupersis，两卷）续补《伊利亚特》以后的事件；《回归》（Nosti，五卷）叙讲返航前阿伽门农和墨奈劳斯关于回返路线的争执，以及小埃阿斯之死和阿伽门农回家后被妻子克鲁泰奈丝特拉和埃吉索斯谋害等内容。很明显，这三部史诗填补了《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛）之间的“空缺”。紧接着俄底修斯回归的故事（即《奥德赛》），库瑞奈诗人欧伽蒙（Eugamon）创作了《忒勒戈尼亚》（Telegonia，两卷），讲述俄底修斯和基耳凯之子忒勒戈诺斯外出寻父并最终误杀其父，以后又婚娶裴奈罗佩等事件。《库普利亚》和《小伊利亚特》等史诗内容芜杂，结构松散，缺少必要的概括和提炼，其艺术成就远不如荷马的《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》。亚里斯多德认为，史诗诗人中，惟有荷马摆脱了历史的局限，着意于摹仿一个完整的行动，避免了“流水账”式的平铺直叙，摈弃了“散沙一盘”式的整体布局。[●]从时间上来看，《库普里亚》等明显的晚于荷马创作的年代，它们所描述的一些情节可能取材于荷马去世后开始流行的传说。
●除了荷马的《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》外，其他史诗均已失传。此外，这些作品或史诗只是古希腊史诗系列（epikos kuklos）中的一部分。为了便于区分和对比，传统上，人们一般不把荷马史诗列入epic cycle的范围。
●《诗学》8·1451a16—30，26·1462B8—11。
荷马
历史上是否确曾有过荷马其人，希腊人的回答是肯定的。生活在公元前七世纪上半叶的厄菲索斯诗人卡利诺斯（Callinos）曾提及史诗《塞拜德》，认为它是荷马的作品；生活在前六世纪的色谱法奈斯（Xenophanes）和开俄斯诗人西摩尼得斯（Simonides，约前556—468年）也曾提及荷马的名字。
希腊人相信，荷马（Homeros）出生在小亚细亚，可能在伊俄尼亚（Ionia），也可能在埃俄利斯（Aeolis）。古时候，至少有七个地方或城市竞相争夺荷马的“所有权”，包括和小亚细亚隔海相望的雅典和阿耳戈斯。在众多的竞争者中，人们较为倾向于接受的有两个，即伊俄尼亚的基俄斯（Chios）和埃俄利亚的斯慕耳纳（Smuma）。开俄斯诗人西摩尼得斯称荷马为Chios aner（基俄斯人）[●]，品达则认为基俄斯和斯慕耳纳同为荷马的故乡。[●]哲学家阿那克西墨奈斯（Anaximenes）认定荷马的家乡在基俄斯；史学家阿库西劳斯（Acusilaos）和赫拉尼科斯（Hellanikos）也表示过同样的意向。此外，在古时归于荷马名下的“阿波罗颂”里，作者称自己是个“盲人”，来自“山石嶙峋的基俄斯。”[●]
●片断85，Bergk；另见片断8，West
●古时候，人们传统上将斯慕耳纳定为荷马的出生地，而将基俄斯看作是他创编《伊利亚特》的地方，即《伊利亚特》的“故乡”。
●《荷马诗颂》，“阿波罗颂”172。
萨摩斯史学家欧伽昂（Eugaion）相信荷马为斯慕耳纳人，荷马问题专家、萨索斯人斯忒新勃罗托斯（Stesimbrotos，生活在前五世纪）不仅认定荷马是斯慕耳纳人，而且还说那里有诗人的词龛，受到人们像敬神般的崇仰。在早已失传的《论诗人》里，亚里斯多德称荷马卒于小岛伊俄斯（Ios），这一提法可能取自当时流行的传闻。
按希罗多德推算（以每百年三代人计），荷马的生活年代，“距今至多不超过四百年”，换言之，大约在公元前850年左右。[●]希罗多德将荷马和黑西俄得归为同时代的诗人，[●]而色诺法奈斯则以为荷马的活动年代早于黑西俄得。[●]修昔底得对此有过间接的提述，认为荷马生活在特洛伊战争之后，其间不会有太久远的年隙。[●]至迟在公元前七至六世纪，已有人引用荷马的诗句；至前五世纪，荷马已是家喻户晓的名字。由此可见，将荷马的生活年代推定在公元前八世纪（至七世纪初），应当不能算是太过草率的。一般认为，《伊利亚特》的创编时间可能在公元前750至675年间。
●《历史》2·53·2。
●《历史》2·53·2。
●片断B13，Diels—Kranz。
●《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》l·3·3。
《伊利亚特》
荷马既不是古希腊惟一的、也不是最早的史诗诗人。《伊利亚特》基本上取用古老的伊俄尼亚方言，同时亦包容大量的埃俄利斯方言的用语、变格和其他语法特征，有的甚至可以追溯到古老的慕凯奈时代。此外，阿耳卡底亚一塞浦路斯方言也在《伊利亚特》中留下了它的印迹。很明显，关于特洛伊战争的史诗起源于古远的年代，（可能）以不太长的故事形式流传于宫廷、军营和民间。荷马的功绩，不在于首创描述特洛伊战争的故事或史诗，而在于广征博采，巧制精编，苔前人之长，避众家之短，以大诗人的情怀，大艺术家的功力，创作了《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》这两部不朽的诗篇。
Ilaias，即《伊利亚特》，意为“关于伊利昂的故事”或“伊利昂诗记”，作为诗名，最早见之于希罗多德的著作。《伊利亚特》共二十四卷（系后人所分），15,693（±）行，各卷的长度从429到999行不等。荷马史诗采用六音步长短短格（即扬抑抑格），取其前长后短的下冲之势。但是，荷马史诗又不是长短短格的“一统天下”。实际上，除第五音步外，其他音步亦可接受长长格（即扬扬格）；此外，第六音步更是长短短格的“禁区”，一般用长短格（即扬抑格）取而代之。这样，我们可用下列符号或符号组合，表示荷马史诗（或六音步长短短格叙事诗，英雄史诗）的格律或节奏形式：
—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—UUI—U
荷马是一位吟诵诗人（aoides），生活在一个还没有书面文字，或书面文字已经失传、尚未复兴或重新输入（至少尚不广泛流行）的时代。所以，《伊利亚特》首先是一部口头文学作品。口诵史诗的一个共同和显著的特点是采用一整套固定或相对固定的饰词、短语和段落。显然，这一创作方式有助于诗人的构制。记忆以及难度很大的临场吟诵和不可避免的即兴发挥。在《伊利亚特》里，阿伽门农是“军队的统帅”（或“兵众的首领”），墨奈劳斯是“啸吼战场的”战将；我们读到“沉雷远播的”宙斯。“白臂膀的”赫拉、“足智多谋的”俄底修斯、“头盔闪亮的”赫克托耳、“捷足的”阿基琉斯、“胫甲坚固的”阿开亚人、“酒蓝色的”大海和“土地肥沃的”特洛伊。这些程式化用语（form．lae）不仅点出了被修饰者（名词，人或物）的某个或某些特点。属性和品类，而且有助于渲染和墨饰史诗凝重、宏伟和肃穆的诗品特征。英雄们“高大”、“魁伟”、“英俊”，在满足了吃喝的欲望后雄辩滔滔，送吐“长了翅膀的话语”，或躺下享受睡眠的香甜。英雄们敢作敢为，盛怒时“恶狠狠地盯着”对手，阵亡后淬然倒地，“轰然一声，铠甲在身上铿锵作响”。他们先是全副武装，接着冲上战场，跳下战车，和对手互骂一通，撂倒数名战将，把敌人赶得遑遑奔逃，然后自己受挫负伤，举手求告神佑，重新获得勇气和力量，继续战斗，阵杀敌方的犹首。接着，两军围着尸体展开恶战，伤亡惨重，凭借神的助佑，从枪林箭雨下救出阵亡的将领和伴友。《伊利亚特》中描述了五次这样的“壮举”（aristeiai），用了类似的模式，虽然在某些单项上略有出入。大段的复述（如 2·11—15， 23—33， 60—70，9·123—57，354—99等）有助于减轻诗人的劳动强度，加长史诗的篇幅，深化听众对某些内容的印象。
程式化用语的形成和发展经历了漫长的岁月。某些用语，尤其是某些神祗的指称，如阿耳吉丰忒斯（赫耳墨斯）、阿特鲁托奈（雅典娜）等，在荷马生活的年代可能已是“化石”或“古董”。作为饰词，“牛眼睛的”可能产生于崇拜图腾的时代，在荷马史诗里已失去它的字面意义，成为“美丽的”、“漂亮的”同义语。
一位神或英雄往往有一个以上、甚至几十个饰词或程式化用语。诗人可以根据格律和音步的需要选用合适的饰词。以对宙斯为例，在不同的上下文和格律组合里，诗人用了不同的修饰成分，包括“多谋善断的”、“汇聚乌云的”、“沉雷远播的”等等。同样，根据格律和音律的需要，诗人有时用“长发的”，有时则用“胫甲坚固的”，偶尔也用“身披铜甲的”修饰阿开亚人。格律和音律原则制约着诗人的用词，同时也丰富了史诗的语言，增强了它的表现力。众多的饰词使诗人有可能不仅根据格律的要求，而且还能照顾到意思或语义的需要，选用合适的用语。当阿基琉斯筹备帕特罗克洛斯的葬礼时，他就不再是“捷足的”英雄，而是“心胸豪壮的”伙伴，因为在这一语境中，后者似乎比前者更具庄重肃穆的色彩。然而，有时，为了照顾格律和句式的规整，也为了维护史诗中程式化用语的稳定性，诗人亦会有意识地“忽略”饰词的原意，而把它们当做纯粹的格律成分，附加在名词或被修饰成分之上。例如，我们一般不会把恶魔波鲁菲摩斯看作是“神一样的”（《奥德赛》l·70）英雄，也不会倾向于认为“尊贵的母亲”符合乞丐伊罗斯娘亲的身份（《奥德赛10·5）。有的程式化饰词明显地不符合被修饰成分当时的状态和处境。比如，阿芙罗底忒在冤诉时仍然是“欢笑的”（5·375），白日的晴空是“多星的”（8·46），而肮脏的衣服照旧是“闪光的”（《奥德赛》6·26）等等。
荷马是一位功底深厚、想像丰富、善于创新的语言大师。《伊利亚特》“词章华丽，妙语迭出，精彩、生动的用词和比喻俯拾皆是。荷马知用暗喻（如“战斗的屏障”（喻善战的壮勇）。“羊群的母亲”（喻山地），但却更为熟悉，也更善使用明喻。《伊利亚特》中的明喻分两类，一类为简单型，另一类则是从简单型的基础上发展而来的复杂型。简单型明喻的结构特征是A像B。埃阿斯的战盾“像一堵墙”，兵勇们像狼或狮子似地战斗。阿波罗从俄林波斯上下来，“像黑夜一般”（l·47）；塞提丝从海里出来，“像一层薄雾”（l·359）。此类明喻，荷马用来得心应手，熨贴自如，其技巧可谓已达炉火纯青的地步。
另一类明喻，即复杂型明喻，在其他民族早期的史诗中绝少出现，但在荷马史诗中却是个用例众多、趋于普通的语言现象。此类明喻的结构特征是在A像B之后附加一整段完整的内容，其修饰或解说对象不是接受喻示的A，而是作为喻象物的B。例如：
如同一位迈俄尼亚或卡里亚妇女，用鲜红的颜料
涂漆象牙，制作驭马的颊片，尽管许多驭手
为之唾涎欲滴，它却静静地躺在
里屋，作为王者的佳宝，受到双重的
珍爱，既是马的饰物，又能为驭者增添荣光。（4·141－45）
通常，诗人以“就像这样……”结束明喻，继续故事的进程：
就像这样，墨奈劳斯，鲜血浸染了你强健的
大腿，你的小腿和线条分明的踝骨。（4·146—47）
一般说来，史诗属叙事诗的范畴。《伊利亚特》中的叙述分两种，一种是诗人以讲叙者的身份所作的叙述，另一种是诗人以人物的身份所进行的表述、表白和对话。亚里斯多德称第一种形式为“描述”，称第二种形式为“表演”。[●]《伊利亚特》中，直接引语约占一半左右，而直接引语即为人物的叙述（包括复述），近似于剧中人（dramafis personae）的话白。毫无疑问，此类语言形式为表演式叙述提供了现成的材料。从这个意义上来说，《伊利亚特》是介于纯粹的叙事诗（即诗人完全或基本上以讲述者的身份叙述）和戏剧（诗）之间的一种诗歌形式。柏拉图认为，荷马史诗属于悲剧的范畴，[●]而荷马是“第一个悲剧诗人”。[●]
●《诗学》3·1448a21—24。
●《共和国》10·595C。
●《共和国》10·607A。
《伊利亚特》描述了一场轰轰烈烈的战争中最悲壮的一页。它展示了战争的暴烈，和平的可贵；抒表了胜利的喜悦，失败的痛苦；描述了英雄的业绩，征战的艰难。它阐释人和神的关系，审视人的属性和价值；它评估人在战争中的得失，探索催使人们行动的内外因素；在一个神人汇杂、事实和想像并存、过去和现在交融的文学平面上对影响人的生活、决定人的思想、制导人的行为的一系列重大问题，进行了严肃的、认真的、有深度的探讨。
《伊利亚特》所触及的一个最根本的问题是人生的有限和在这一有限的人生中人对生命和存在价值的索取。和平时期的生活是美好的。牛羊在山坡上漫步，姑娘们在泉溪边浣洗；年轻人穿梭在笑语之中，喜气洋洋地采撷丰产的葡萄。诗人弹拨竖琴，动情的引吭高歌；姑娘小伙们穿着漂亮的衣衫，跳出欢快的舞步（18·561—72）。然而，即便是典型意义上的幸福生活，也不可避免地包孕着悲愁的种子，人的属类使他最终无法摆脱死的迫胁。人是会死的，不管他愿不愿意见到死的降临。人生短暂，短得让人不寒而栗：
裂地之神，你会以为我头脑发热，
倘若我和你开打，为了可怜的凡人。
他们像树叶一样，一时间风华森茂，
如火的生机，食用大地催产的硕果；然而好景不长，
他们枯竭衰老，体毁人亡。（21·462—6）
人生如同树叶的催发和枯亡；在第六卷第145—49行里，荷马已表述过这一思想。在战争中，在你死我活的绞杀中，死亡每时每刻都在发生；人们尖叫着纷纷倒地，“头脸朝下”，“手抓泥尘”。死神把成百上千的壮勇拖人阴暗的地府；战争张开血盆大口，吞噬年轻的斗士，啐嚼蓬勃的人生。即便勇烈如阿基琉斯，最终也将走上战死疆场的辛酸路：
但现在，谁也甭想死里逃生，倘若神3氏把他送到
我的手里，在这伊利昂城前……所以，
我的朋友，你也必死无疑。既如此，你又何必这般疾首痛心？
帕特罗克洛斯已经死去，一位远比你杰出的战勇。
还有我——没看见吗？长得何等高大、英武，
有一位显赫的父亲，而生我的母亲更是一位不死的女神。
然而，就连我也逃不脱死和强有力的命运的迫胁，
将在某一天拂晓、黄昏或中午，
被某一个人放倒，在战斗中，
用投枪，或是离弦的箭镞。（21·103—13）兵勇们知晓他们的使命，他们的归宿；那是战斗的人生。正如俄底修斯慷慨陈辞的那样：……我们，按着
宙斯的意志，历经残酷的战争，从青壮
打到老年，直至死亡，谁也不能幸免。（且485—87）生命短暂，战争无情。但是，壮勇们并没有悲观失望，消极颓废，也没有因此贪生怕死，畏缩不前。不错，凡人的生聚就像树叶一样，秋风一起，籁籁落地，一去不返。但是，倘若
……一日
春风拂起，枝干便会抽发茸密的新绿。
人同此理，新的一代崛起，老的一代死去。（6·147—49）
人生充满生机，充满创建功业的希望和喜悦。世代的更替给家族带来的不是悲生厌世的情绪，不是怨天尤人的悲叹，不是无所作为和默默无闻，而是枪马创立的霸业，汗血浇铸的英名，世代相传的美谈。战勇们不厌其烦地对着敌人大段地宣讲自己的宗谱，从中享受作为英雄后代的光荣和骄傲。战争诚然无情，死亡确实可怕，但战士的责职是效命疆场，战士的荣誉是拼杀掳掠，战士的喜悦是千古留芳：
我的朋友啊，要是你我能从这场战斗中生还，
得以长生不死，拒老抗衰，与天地同存，
我就再也不会站在前排里战斗，
也不会再要你冲向战场，人们争得荣誉的地方。
但现在，死的精灵正挨站在我们身边，
数千阴影，谁也逃生不得，躲不过它的击打——
所以，让我们冲上前去，要么为自己争得荣光，要么把它
拱手让给敌人！（12·322—28）在向对手挑战时，赫克托耳高声喊道，倘若让他得手，他将把遗体交还长发的阿开亚人，使他们得以礼葬死者，堆坟筑墓，在靠海的地方。他预言：
将来，有人路经此地，驾着带坐板的海船，
破浪在酒蓝色的洋面，眺见这个土堆，便会出言感叹：
“那里埋着一个战死疆场的古人，
一位勇敢的壮士，倒死在光荣的赫克托耳手下。”
将来，有人会如此说告，而我的荣誉将与世长存。
（7·87—91） 今生匆忽，所以在所必争；生命可贵，所以必须珍惜。财富可以通过掠劫获取，但人的魂息，一经滑出齿隙，就无法“再用暴劫掠回，也不能通过易贾复归”。阿基琉斯宁可做一个农人的帮工，也不愿当冥府里鬼魂的王者（《奥德赛》12·489—21）。然而，对生命的挚爱，没有使英雄成为生命的奴仆——除开神的因素，他们始终是它的主人。明知命运险厄，但却拒不向它屈服；明知征战艰难，但即使打到头破血流，也要拼个你死我活。活要活得扬眉吐气，死要死得明明白白。在黑雾弥漫的战场上，忒拉蒙之子埃阿斯喊出了悲愤的呼号：
哦，父亲宙斯，把阿开亚人的儿子们拉出迷雾吧！
让阳光照泻，使我们重见天日！把我们杀死吧，
杀死在灿烂的日光里，如果此时此刻，毁灭我们能使你欢悦！
（17·645—47） 用有限的生命抗拒无限的困苦和磨难，在短促的一生中使生命最大限度地获取和展现自身的价值，使它在抗争的最炽烈的热点上闪烁出勇力、智慧和进取的光华。这便是荷马的勇士们的人生，凡人试图冲破而又无法冲破自身的局限的悲壮（另见“英雄”节）。很明显，这是人生的悲剧，也是人生的自豪。虽然这一主题在后世的悲剧作家、尤其是索福克勒斯的作品中得到了淋漓尽致的发挥——我们不要忘记，是荷马和他的《伊利亚特》首先教我们看到人生的悲苦，人生的英烈，人生的渺小和伟大。
英雄
按照荷马的观点，英雄或壮士是神的后裔，天之骄子，凡人中的宠儿。英雄们具备凡人所羡慕的一切，是阿开亚人中的俊杰（aristees panachaion）。他们出身高贵，人人都有显赫的门第，可资夸耀的家族，坐霸一方，王统天下。他们相貌俊美，仪表堂堂，鹤立鸡群在芸芸众生之中。阿基琉斯是男性美的典范（《奥德赛》11·470）。前往赎取儿子遗体的普里阿摩斯，在“满足了吃喝的欲望后”，凝目阿基琉斯，
惊慕他的俊美，高大挺拔的身躯，就像
神明一般……（24·630—31） 在特洛伊城楼上，普里阿摩斯望着阿伽门农的雄姿，开口问道（对海伦）：
走近些，告诉我他的名字，那个伟岸的勇士，
他是谁，那位强健、壮实的阿开亚人？
我从未见过如此出类拔萃的人物，
这股高豪的气派——此人必是一位王贵！（3·166—70） 英雄俄底修斯，虽说比阿伽门农矮了一头，但他的肩膀和胸背却长得更为宽厚（3·193—94）。
英雄们膀阔腰圆，力大如牛。埃阿斯的战盾大得像一面围墙，而阿基琉斯“仅凭一己之力，即可把它捅入检孔”的插杠，需要三个阿开亚人方能拴拢和拉开（24·454—56）。硕大的石岩，当今之人，即便站出两个，也莫它奈何，而图丢斯之子狄俄墨得斯却仅凭一己之力，轻松地把它高举过头（5·303－4）。很自然，在荷马看来，神的血脉，高贵的王家子弟，要是没有过人的勇力，那是荒唐的。英雄是力量的象征。
尽管战争是“可怕的”、“可恨的”、“屠人的”，壮士们却嗜战如命，“渴望着”冲战杀敌，品味“战斗的喜悦”。勇敢战斗是祖传的古训。格劳斯对秋俄墨得斯嚷道：家父
要我英勇作战，比谁都勇敢，以求出人头地，
不致辱没我的前辈，生长在厄芙拉
和辽阔的鲁基亚的最勇敢的人。（6·208—10）他们不仅嗜战，而且善战——天底下哪有英雄不会打仗的道理？面对埃阿斯的威胁，赫克托耳（在《伊利亚特》里，他还不是超一流的战将）针锋相对，开口作了一番“自我介绍”：
我请熟格战的门道，杀人是我精通的绝活。
我知道如何左抵右挡，用牛皮坚韧的
战盾，此乃防卫的高招。
我知道如何驾着快马，杀人飞跑的车阵；
我知道如何攻战，荡开战神透着杀气的舞步。（7·237—41） 壮士们不仅擅使枪矛，而且能用口舌。荷马史诗中的英雄是口才出众的辩者，行动果敢的勇士（9·443，另见2·273，18·105—6，18·252）。勇猛豪强，雄辩滔滔，方为英雄本色，凡人的楷模。会场，如同战场一样，是人们“争得荣誉的地方”（1·490）。作为阿基琉斯的私人教师，福伊尼克斯负责教授辩说的技巧或本领，因为雄辩“使人出类拔萃”。能谋善辩的俄底修斯之所以受到全军的爱戴，除了作战勇敢和受到雅典娜的特别关照外，出众的辩才亦是一个不可忽略的原因。特洛伊智者安忒诺耳赞赏墨奈劳斯的表述，认为他用词精炼，出言迅捷，但却更为赞赏俄底修斯的稳笃，赞慕他的词锋和无与伦比的话辩：
但是，当洪亮的声音冲出他的丹田，词句像冬天的
雪片一样纷纷扬扬地飘来时，凡人中就不会有他的对手；
谁也不能匹敌俄底修斯的口才！（3·221—23） 文武双全的奈斯托耳，虽说年纪轻轻（在他年轻时代），却已能征战掳掠，欢悦父亲的心胸（11·682—84）；用他的如簧之舌，大江奔水般的辩才，争得同僚们的慕爱，使他们倾听他的意见，尊重他的言论（1·273）。年轻的狄俄墨得斯既是战场上的主将，又是会场上的精英，他的才华博得了老英雄奈斯托耳的称赞：
图丢斯之子，论战斗，你勇冠全军；
论谋辩，你亦是同龄人中的佼杰。
阿开亚人中，谁也不能轻视你的意见，
反驳你的言论……
……你，面对阿耳吉维人的
王者，说话头头是道，条理分明。（9·53—59） 不过，狄俄墨得斯的辩才还没有臻达登峰造极的水平，因为他还年轻——论年龄，可做奈斯托耳的儿子，“最小的儿子”。
英雄世界的价值观的中心内容是time（荣誉、声誉、面子）。他们把个人的荣誉和尊严看作是比生命更重要，因而是更可贵的东西。损害壮士的time，夺走应该属于他的所有，意味着莫大的刺激和冒犯。维护自己的time亦即维护自己的人格、家族的名誉和人际关系的公正，即dike。显然，如果发展不当，误入歧途，time是把英雄推向at6和hubris（见下文）的一个重要的价值观方面的因素。勇力和辩才是英雄手中的两种武器；通过它们，壮土为自己和家族争得土地、财富和尊荣，维持、巩固和捍卫已有的社会地位、分配格局和既得利益。
毋庸置疑，英雄不是完人的同义词。他们（至少他们中的许多人）困于人生的局限，受欲念的支配和time的催激，有着秉性或性格上的弱点或缺点。由于阿伽门农的狂暴，夺走阿基琉斯的女伴，从而导致这位联军中最杰出的壮勇挟怒罢战，使希腊人遭受惨重的伤亡。当帕拉丝·雅典娜从天上下凡，试图阻止阿基琉斯和阿伽门农火并时，裴琉斯之子开口责问道：
带埃吉斯的宙斯的孩子，为何现时降临？想看看
阿特柔斯之子，看看阿伽门农的骄横跋扈（hubris）吗？
（l·202－3） 奈斯托耳批评阿伽门农被高傲和狂怒蒙住了双眼，屈辱了全军最好的战勇；阿伽门农接受他的指责，承认“我是疯了……瞎了眼，听任恶怒的驱使”（9·116—19），并愿拿出丰厚的偿礼，弥补过失。他感叹道，是克罗诺斯之子把他推入了狂盲（ate）的陷阱（9·18）。同样，阿基琉斯的悲剧也有他自身方面的原因。他固执、刚愎、狂蛮，连身边最亲密的伴友对他亦不无微言，说他“刚烈、粗暴，甚至可对一个无辜之人动怒发火”（11·654）。“此人全然不顾礼面”——阿波罗骂道——“心胸狂蛮，偏顽执拗，像一头狮子，沉溺于自己的勇力和高傲”（24·40—42）。面对阿基琉斯重新出战的严酷局面，头脑冷静的普鲁达马斯劝说赫克托耳退兵城堡，以便在城内抗击阿开亚人的进攻，但赫克托耳不但不听忠告，反而“恶狠狠地盯着他”，把他骂得狗血喷头。赫克托耳的蛮横和暴虐造成了严重的后果；他葬毁了军队的前程，断送了自己的性命。
神
荷马描述了一个好斗的、擅于辞令而不会或很少进行道德说教的神的群体。荷马史诗里的众神，不是普渡众生的菩萨，也不是作为道德楷模的基督，亦不是作为凡人的精神寄托的穆罕默德。古希腊诗人以人的形象、性情、心态和行为方式为原型，创造或塑造了一个神的群体。在荷马史诗里，神们按人的心理动机思考和行动，有着人的七情六欲，沿用人的社群特点，人的交际模式。神们分享人的弱点和道德方面的不完善——神是不死的凡人。在那个时代，神和人的交往是直接而具体的。神的参与贯穿着整部《伊利亚特》的进程。神可以在他或她需要的任何时候（除非受到宙斯的阻止）下到凡间，寻找任何一个要找的凡人，谈论任何想要谈论的事情。作为一种沟通的方式，凡人可以通过祈祷求得神的帮助。
和凡人一样，神以家庭或家族的形式存在，而宙斯是神界的家长或旅长。神界的权威甚至比人间更明显地取决于单纯的、不加掩饰的力或体力。凭藉无与伦比的神力，宙斯推翻了父亲克罗诺斯的统治，夺得神界的王位。俄林波斯众神中谁也不敢和他抗衡，梦想和他争霸，因为宙斯的勇力远非其他诸神所能企及。他兽警告多管闲事的赫拉，用词相当粗暴、严厉：
闭上你的嘴，静静地坐到一边去。按我说的办——
否则，当我走过去，对你甩开我的双臂，展示不可抵御的
神力时，
俄林波斯山上的众神，就是全部出动，也帮不了你的忙！
（1·565—67）
这是个赤裸裸的力的世界。当然，宙斯不是个有勇无谋的莽汉。他是“工于心计的”克罗诺斯的儿子，以“能谋善辩”著称。俄林波斯众神分作两派，一派支持阿开亚人，以赫拉和雅典娜为骨干；另一派帮助特洛伊人，以阿波罗和埃阿斯为核心。宙斯时而偏袒这一方，时而放纵那一方，从中享受权势带来的喜悦。他曾严厉警告赫拉，也曾一本正经地威胁波塞冬，俨然一副凌驾于两派之上的神主模样。然而，他从来不想认真解决两派之间的争端。他喜欢远离众神，静静地坐在俄林波斯或伊达的峰脊，以此表示自己的独特和超群——不是吗，宇宙的孤主，既不同污于凡人，也不合流于他所统管的神群。“他远远地坐在那里，既不关心我们，也不把我们放在眼里”（15·105—6）。兴致上来时，他甚至可以就着某件事由，指令神界的两派大打出手，搅个天昏地暗，愉悦他的心怀（20·22—25）。这，或许就是神界的政治，而《伊利亚特》中的宙斯是个懂得如何运用权术和擅搞政治平衡的行家。
同幸福的神祗相比，凡人是“可怜的”或“可悲的”。人的一个程式化用语是deiloisibrotoisi（悲苦的众生）。神的生活，由于超越了死的禁限，因而既没有人生的艰难，也缺少人生的严肃和厚重。按照诗人的观点，神们理所当然地拥有几人想要而又不那么容易得获的东西，并把它们赠送给可怜的、在体力、心力和智力方面都受到极大局限的凡人。对这些不幸的苍生，神是勇力、智慧和权威的赐造者。阿基琉斯凭着神的赐助而勇冠群雄，阿伽门农则凭藉神赋的权杖得以王统阿耳吉维人。如果说某人特别聪明，那是因为神给了他智慧；相反，倘若有人干出傻事，那就可能是因为神们夺走了他的睿智。神给了赫尔卡斯卜占的奇术（1·71），给了菲瑞克洛斯制作的绝艺（5·59—61），使菲弥俄斯获得唱诗的灵感（《奥德赛》22·347）。好猎手的技艺得之于阿耳忒弥丝的教诲，好射手的强弓得之于阿波罗的馈赠。
荷马的史诗世界里不存在“盲目”、“偶然”或和事态的正常及一般状态对比而言的“偶发现象”。自然界和人世间的一切事端和现象，如果不是人为的，便是神的手笔。雷电是宙斯送来的，地震是波塞冬制导的，性爱是阿芙罗底忒驱怂的。《伊利亚特》里没有什么不能解释的事情。对人物作出的重大决定，荷马一般采用“双重动因”的解法（从中我们亦可看到人的作用；在荷马史诗里，人，尽管多灾多难，但决不是无足轻重的）。阿基琉斯作出夺取阿基琉斯女伴的决定，一则因为自己生性刚蛮，二则也因为受到神力的驱使（19·86—90）。同样，雅典娜的劝阻和阿基琉斯的抉择使他避免了和阿伽门农的火并（1·188—218）。在第九卷里，狄俄墨得斯预言阿基琉斯将重返战场，受（他自己）心灵的驱使，神明的催督（703）。对一些重大战事（和赛事）的处理，荷马亦常常沿用这一方法。帕特罗克洛斯死于神力和凡人战力的混合；同样，赫克托耳的死亡归之于阿基琉斯的骁勇和雅典娜的帮忙。
按照荷马的神学观，除了神以外，人生还受到另一种超自然的力量，即命运或命限（moira，aisa）的制约和摆布。对命运，荷马一般不作人格化的描述；此外，moira亦没有家谱，不像一般神祗和神灵那样，可以找出祖宗三代。Moira的力量主要在于限定人生的长度或限度；凡人在出生的那一刻即已带上死亡的阴影（20·127—28，23·78—79，24·209—10）。凡人一般不能通过祈祷解脱命运的束缚。至少从理论上来说，命运是可以在一定程度上被冲破或超越的。在第二十卷里，宙斯对众神说道，挟着由帕特罗克洛斯之死引发的暴怒，阿基琉斯可能冲破命运的制约，攻破城堡（29—30）。作为“神和人的父亲”，无所不能随宙斯自然握有冲破命运的神力。在爱子萨耳裴冬死前，宙斯曾考虑把他救离战场，只是因为遭到赫拉的强烈反对而作罢：
你打算把他救出悲惨的死亡，一个凡人，
一个命里注定要死的凡人？
做去吧，宙斯，但我等众神绝不会一致赞同。（16·441—43）可见，如果愿意，宙斯可以救出萨耳裴冬，但这么做可能会引起众神的反感，带出一系列连锁反应，破坏天体的和谐，产生难以预期的结果。
城堡及兵民
荷马史诗里的核心社区单位是城堡或城镇（polis，astu，Ptoliethron）。Polis既是兵民的集会地点，又是抗御敌人进犯的堡垒；既是社会活动的中心，又是进行贸易和举行宗教仪式的场所。阿基琉斯的战盾上铸着两座城市，集中反映了兵民们在战争及和平时期的两种不同的生活景状。城堡的外围有一片农野或乡村地区，即agros或erga；城市和乡村一起组成“区域”或“地域”（demos，gaia）。广义上的polis往往包括城镇、郊区和城里城外的人民——由此组成荷马史诗中的一个基本的政治实体。
城堡的统治者是basileus（国王、王者）；某些王者或统治者（如阿伽门农等）拥有一个以上的城镇，而以王者居住的城堡为政治、军事和文化的中心。战时，basileus是本部兵民的统帅，下设若干分队，由头领们管带（1·171—72）。重要的社会行当包括信使、祭司等。在荷马史诗里，先知、医者、木匠和诗人同属“工作者”（demiourgoi）的范畴（《奥德赛》17·383—85），即用自己的手艺或本领为民众服务的人。荷马用laos、laoi、plethus、demos表示一般民众（或兵丁），即来自城堡的“公民”。来自外邦的定居者叫metanastes或xeinos（客民）。无业游民（thetes）似乎亦属自由人阶层，没有自己的土地，以帮工为生。此外，在一个以军事民主制为特征的古代社会里，当然不会没有奴隶（dmoes，dmoai）。如同分得的其他战礼（战利品）一样，奴隶一般归属个人所有。
王者、辩议会、集会
作为贵族的子弟和代表，王者是城邦或属地内的最高军政首长。在《伊利亚特》里，阿伽门农以希腊联军统帅的身份雄居众王之上，比后者更具决策的权威。“你统领着浩浩荡荡的大军”——奈斯托耳说道——“宙斯把王杖交在你的手里，使你有了决断的权力，得以训导麾下的兵丁”（998—99）。狄俄墨得斯承认，阿伽门农拥有“别人不可企及的尊荣”（9·37）。奈斯托耳劝慰盛怒中的阿基琉斯不要和阿伽门农争吵，“在荣誉的占有上，别人得不到他的份子”（1·278）。俄底修斯更是直截了当地警告遑遑奔跑的兵勇：阿开亚人不能个个都是王者，“王者众多不是一件好事——这里只应有一个统治者，一个大王”（2·203—5）。王者拥有上好的份地（temenos），享有率先挑取战礼（geraas）的特权，接受属民的礼物和贡奉。在宴会上，他们享坐尊位，吃用特份的肉食，喝饮满杯的醇酒。作为对权力的平衡，王者有义务宴请共事的首领和权贵。在第九卷里，奈斯托耳——在作过一番明智的劝议后——对阿伽门农说道：现在
应由你，阿伽门农，作为最高贵的王者，行使统帅的职权。
摆开宴席，招待各位首领；这是你的义务，和你的
身份相符。……（9·69—71）
荷马史诗里的王者尽管刚傲不羁、粗莽狂烈，但却不是典型意义上的暴君。事实上，在政治、司法，甚至在军事方面，最高统帅的权力都受到辩议会（Boule geronton）的掣肘。与会的gerontes（首领）通常本身即是王者——战场上，他们是统兵的将帅。他们享有很高的威望，言行举足轻重。阿伽门农必须认真倾听他们的意见，按最好的办法行事（9·74—75）。
辩议会上商讨过的事情，如果事关重大，还要提交大会或集会（agore或agora）的讨论和通过。在《伊利亚特》里，阿开亚人的集会扩大到普通的laioi；而特洛伊人的集会还包括年老体弱的非战斗人员。有地位的发言者一般要手握王杖，以得体的方式讲话。首领们遵从“言论自由”的原则；在集会上，此乃他们的权利（9·33）。Gerontes可对任何人提出批评（甚至谩骂），包括对最高军事首长阿伽门农。不过，对地位比较低下的人，情况则不尽相同。卜者卡尔卡斯担心他的真言会招来阿伽门农的报复，只是在得到阿基琉斯的承诺后，方才道出阿波罗为何发怒的原因。对一个身份不够“吃重”的人，责辱王者只能替自己招来麻烦和不幸。兵众们通过呼喊表示他们的倾向和意志——是赞成，还是反对。
穿戴
在荷马史诗里，人们穿着十分简单。男子们巾身穿用一件用亚麻布织制的衣衫（或许可称之为套衫），即chiton，然后，如果需要的话，罩上一件（或一条）衣篷或披篷（chlaina，pharos）。一般认为，chiton是个外来词，取自近邻闪米特人的用语。Chiton卡及膝上腹下，短袖。在第二卷里，阿伽门农起身后，穿上一件簇新的chiton和一领硕大的pharos。阿开亚人从普里阿摩斯进送的赎礼中留出一件chiton和一件pharos，作为遮裹遗体的用物（24·588）。赴战前，雅典娜穿上父亲的chiw，然后扣上胸甲chlainai取料羊毛，分单层和夹层（双层）两种，用饰针或钩扣连系（10·133）。披篷上可织出精美的图纹，并可染成深红、绛紫等视感庄重的色彩。Chlainai和pharos的具体区别，今人不得而知；但有一点可以肯定，即二者都可作铺盖之用。阿基琉斯的仆属们用chlainai为普里阿摩斯备床（24·646）；慕耳弥冬兵勇们将帕特罗克洛斯抬上尸床，盖上一层薄薄的亚麻布，用一条白色的pharos罩掩全身（18·352—53）。甚至可作风帆的用料（《奥德赛》5·258）。在这些上下文里，chlaina和pharos似乎和大片的织布没有什么两样。兵勇们一般足蹬条鞋，可能取料坚韧的牛皮。
妇女们通常身着裙衫（peplos，heanos），并和男子一样，穿用pharos。Peplos短袖，需用饰针别连。亚麻布裙衫常取其白亮的本色，亦可织出各种条纹，染出多种色彩（可能系羊毛质料）——荷马用“黎明抖开金红色的裙袍”（8·1）表现曙光铺泻大地的瑰丽景色。裙衫一般长垂直泻，hebewi（长裙飘摆的）是好的一个程式化饰语。妇女们几乎无例外地使用腰带，扎在peplos。外面——“束腰紧深的”和“束腰秀美的”正是对这一装束习惯的贴切而又富有诗意的写照。
妇女们通常带用头巾（kredemnon，kaluptre），可能系一种亚麻布织物。Kredemon从头顶遮及脖项，甚至可能垂过肩头。倘若需要，用者可将头巾掩起脸面，如同裴奈罗珮在走入求婚者们的厅堂。
后器、铠甲
荷马本身没有经历过特落伊战争。荷马史诗是传统和天才创作的产物，而不是严格意义上的历史。像对其他一些事物、状态和现象的描述一样，荷马对兵械的描述也带有“跨时代”的特征。他所提及的甲械，有的属于慕凯奈时期的用物，有的则可能出现在以后，甚至晚至荷马生活的年代。所谓史诗，是诗和史的结合，可以，而且应该有一些不合史实、甚至凭空想像出来的成分。
（1）胫甲
“胫甲坚固的”（euknemides）是形容阿开亚士兵的最常用的程式化饰语，在《伊利亚特》中出现了三十一次。早期的胫 甲可能用生牛皮（甚至粗布）制成，类似莱耳忒斯在葡萄园里工作时所有的皮质护腿（《奥德赛》24·228—29）。在慕凯奈时代，铜胫甲的使用并不普遍。从原文看，knemis（胫甲）本身并不包含“金属”的意思。在《伊利亚特》里，“胫甲青铜的（chalkoknemides）阿开亚人”仅出现一次（7·41）。赫法伊斯托斯用白锡为阿基琉斯打过一副胫甲，但这是神工的铸品，可能与众不同。胫甲上安着银质的拌扣，围系在脚踝边。胫甲的功用一可挡御敌人的击射，二可保护小腿不受盾牌（遮掩全身的巨盾，见“盾牌”节）的擦伤。弓战者一般用体积较小的圆盾，所以常常不带胫甲。
（2）胸甲
尽管到目前为止，考占学家们还拿不出一件实物，证明慕凯奈王朝的武士们——正如荷马所描述的那样——是“身披铜甲的”，但鉴于诗人一而再、再而三地使用这一程式化套语（不少于二十四次）的现实，我们很有必要在这个问题上采取严肃、谨慎的态度。“身披铜甲的”原文作chalkochitones（穿青铜chiton的）； Chiton在比喻“甲”或“甲衣”。荷马似乎毫不怀疑阿开亚勇士是“身披铜甲的”（chaleorekon）。赫法伊斯托斯替阿基琉斯打过一副铜甲，欧墨洛斯亦收受过一副铜甲的赏礼。如果说这两副铜甲一副是神工制作的精品，另一副是馈赠的礼物而不足以说明普通胸甲的质地，那么，在另一些较为一般的场合，荷马描述的thorekes（胸甲）亦同样明显地包容“金属制作”的含义。诗人的用词包括“闪亮的”、“擦得锃亮的”等等。小埃阿斯和特洛伊人安菲俄斯穿用亚麻布胸甲（中间可能有所充填），但他们并不是一流的战将。在某些上下文里，荷马还提及一种叫做guala的东西（15·530），可能指胸甲前后的铜片，缀嵌在皮革或其他质料的甲面上，以增强thorekes的防护能力。
（3）盾牌
Sakose和aspis可能原指两种不同的战盾。Aspis通常是“盾面突鼓的”（omphaloessa）、“溜圆的”（pantos eise，而常常是“硕大、坚固的”（mpga te stibaronte）、“用七层牛皮制作的”（haptaboeion）、和“墙面似的”或“塔一般的”（eute purgos）。到了荷马生活的年代，aspis和sakos很可能已成为可以互换的同义词。
据考古发现，慕凯奈时代的战勇们使用两种体积硕大、几可遮掩全身的皮盾，一种为长方形的、双边内卷的拱盾，另一种是中腰内收、呈8字形的护盾。二者都有盾带（telamon），背挎于左肩之上，横贯于右腋之下；不用时，可以甩至背后。《伊利亚特》中多次提及此类层面硕大的战盾。埃阿斯身背“墙面似的”巨盾（7·219），而赫克托耳的盾牌可以遮掩脖子以下、脚踝以上的身体部位（15·646）。荷马史诗里的战后通常是“闪亮的”或“闪光的”，此类饰语明显地喻指盾面或皮面上的铜层。慕凯奈王朝的后期是否出现带铜面的皮盾，到目前为止，我们还不能作出确切的答复。
圆形战盾体积较小，中心突鼓，带图纹，有背带，出现于慕凯奈王朝的后期，可能亦是公元前九至七世纪的史诗诗人们在生活中常见的盾式。
（4）头盔
荷马用korus、kunee、truphaleia和pelex等词表示头帽或帽盔。这些词原来可能分指不同的盔样，但在荷马史诗里已具通用的性质。荷马可在同一个上下文里，用上述名词（不是全部）指称同一顶头盔。上述四词中，前二者更较常用。
早期的头盔一般为皮料制品，遮盖头顶、前额和太阳穴，由盔带紧扣下颌；冠顶插缀马鬃（确切地说，应为马毛，包括马鬃和马尾），有的还带角质的或金属的突角（Phalos）。
在荷马史诗里，头盔一般用料金属，或带有金属的护片。某些饰词，如chalkeres（铜光闪烁的）和phaeinos（铮亮的）等，明显地告示头盔的金属性质。在若干上下文里，荷马干脆在头盔前后加上“铜”字，称其为“铜盔”（chalkeie korus，kunee pagchalkos）。间忽出现的chalko pareios等词表明头盔带有青铜的颊片。自古以来，学者们对phalos的所指难能取得一致的解释：有的把它解作“突角”或某种形式的突出物，有的则取“冠脊”，还有的把它等同于“颊片”。头盔的用料和式样当不只限于一种。例如，在第十卷里，斯拉苏墨得斯给了狄俄墨得斯一顶帽盔，“牛皮做就，无角，也没有盔冠”（257—58）；而墨里俄奈斯则给俄底修斯戴上一顶皮盔，“外面是一排排雪白的牙片”，“中间垫着一层绒毡”（262—65）。此种皮里牙片面的头盔在出土的慕凯奈文物中已有发现。
（5）剑
Xiphos、aor和phasganon三词均喻“剑”，意思上没有明显的区别。在同一个上下文里，荷马曾用这三个词表指同一柄利剑。在荷马史诗里，剑战的场合不多，亦没有大段的描述。“嵌缀银钉的”（arguloelon）一词把我们带到遥远的慕凯奈时代。战剑青铜，带鞘，有背带，可斜挎肩头。
（6）枪矛
长枪是《伊利亚特》中的主要兵器。在程式化的“武装赴战”场景中，阿基琉斯操提一杆长枪（egchos），而阿伽门农和帕特罗克洛斯则各拿两支枪矛（doUle）。 EgChO6较为粗重，常以“硕大、粗长、沉重（的）”为饰词。在第十六卷里，帕特罗克洛斯穿起阿基琉斯的铠甲，但却不曾抓握他的枪矛，“那玩艺……（除了阿基琉斯）阿开亚人中谁也提拿不得”（141—42）。一般认为，egchos用主要用于近战刺捅，而douree则主要用于远距离的投射。不过，在《伊利亚特》里，这两个词通常可以互换使用，其“自由”程度不下于xiphos和phasganon的替换。
（7）弓箭（和弓手）
荷马对弓的描述不多。在第四卷里，他告诉我们，潘达罗斯的弯弓取自一头自打的野山羊的叉角（105—6）。在《伊利亚特》里，尤其是在特洛伊盟军方面，弓（toxon）的使用相当普遍。在人员庞杂的兵队里，agkulotoxoi（弓手）似乎已是一个专门的兵种。鲁基亚人、卡里亚人和迈俄尼亚人都是使弓的兵勇，而鲁基亚首领潘达罗斯更是一位知名的好弓手。特洛伊人中，帕里斯。赫勒诺斯和多隆等都是携弓的战将。阿开亚人擅使长枪，弓手相对稀少，主要有菲洛克忒忒斯、墨里俄奈斯和丢克罗斯。在《伊利亚特》里，弓箭似乎是一种相对古旧的兵器；诗人显然以为“手对手”的攻战更能表现英雄搏杀的壮烈。在第十一卷里，狄俄墨得斯对使弓的帕里斯似乎颇有微词（385）。
箭矢一般为铜头，但潘达罗斯的羽箭却以铁为镞。
（8）战车
战车（diphros）一般为木架结构，边围和底面用皮条绑扎，既可减轻车身的重量（一人即可顶抬，10·504—5），又可消缓跑动时的颠簸。战车做工精致，有的甚至带有金银的镶饰（10·438）。神用的diphros，如赫拉的战车，几乎是金、银、铜的拼合（5·722—31）。
在《伊利亚特》里，战车的作用相当于今天的兵车。驭马将战车拉至战地，壮士（通常只有一人）从车上跳下，徒步介入战斗，而驭手则勒马留在后面，等待战勇的回归。作为一种定型的战式，它的产生大概多少带有诗人“创作”的成分。荷马应该不会不知道diphros的作战功用（除了运兵以外），但在《伊利亚特》里，他对这方面的描述却只有绝无仅有的一例。在第四卷里，老辈人物奈斯托耳命嘱他的部属：谁也不许单独出击或退却；交手时，车上的斗士要用长枪刺捅敌人（303—7）。奈斯托耳宣称，过去，这是一种相当成功的战式。
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.
|
