Hello everyone! I am back. It has once again been a while, but I have officially graduated from college with two degrees after four years and 175 credit hours of study. The other day I was looking at my bookshelf, and decided to be like my old self and start reading again. I inherited all of the Western classics from my grandfather when he passed away, and have just left them to collect dust. Today I resolve to change that, and no longer be content with being stupid, but rather be well read and stupid. Today I will be discussing book 1 of the Iliad, and inviting you to join the discussion! As always, first I will summarize (to the best of my ability) what I read.

The Iliad Book 1

Brief Summary

First of all, it's hard to keep track of all the characters (especially because sometimes they are referred to by their parents) so here are all the characters:

Character Name	Son/Daughter of	Greek, Trojan, or Mythical god/nymph
Achilles	Peleus	Greek
Agamemnon	Atreus	Greek
Chryses	Unknown	Trojan
Chryseis	Chryses	Trojan
Briseis	Briseus	Trojan
Nestor	Neleus	Greek
Odysseus	Laertes	Greek
Zeus	Cronus	mythical god
Hera	Cronus	mythical goddess
Athena	Zeus	mythical goddess
Apollo	Zeus	mythical god
Thetis	Nereus	mythical nymph

This book famously opens with an instruction to the muse: "Sing, O Goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus," and Achille's rage is truly what this first book is about. It opens during the Trojan war - 9 years into the war to be exact. The Achaeans have just defeated a Trojan town, and the king, called Agamemnon, has taken the prettiest woman, Chryseis, as a "prize". Achilles, the strongest and most powerful warrior, has taken the second prettiest woman, Briseis, for his prize. Chryseis' father, Chryses, is a priest of Apollo, and appears before the king and begs for his daughter to be returned to him, offering to pay a generous ransom, but Agamemnon refuses, stating: "Old man. . . Your sceptre of the god and your wreath shall profit you nothing. I will not free her. She shall grow old in my house at Argos far from her own home, busying herself with her loom and visiting my couch."

Chryses returns home, and prays to the god Apollo for help. Apollo sends a plague on the Greek camp that kills many soldiers. After ten days, Achilles meets with the army, and asks if anyone knows what is causing the plague. A seer named Calchas offers his services on the promise that Achilles will protect him. He reveals that the plague is from Apollo as retribution against Agamemnon for taking the priest's daughter, and Agamemnon becomes very upset that he must return Chryseis. He agrees to do it only if he can have Briseis as compensation.

Conflict arises between Agamemnon and Achilles about who deserves Briseis, and whether the king will take her or not. Eventually Achilles determines to draw his sword and slay Agamemnon, but the goddess Athena appears and prevents him from doing so. This plus the council of an elder and wise councilor named Nestor appeases Achilles, and convinces him not to forcefully retaliate.

So Chryseis is returned to her father, and Agamemnon takes Briseis for himself. Devasted, Achilles determines not to fight in battle anymore, and prays to his mother, the sea nymph Thetis to advocate for him with Zeus on mount Olympus, and for the Greeks to suffer losses as a result of his absence. His mother persuades Zeus (though Zeus is reluctant because it will make his wife upset). The book ends with Hera getting very mad at Zeus for favoring the Trojans, but her son Hephaestus convincing her to cool it in order to avoid starting a fight among the Gods over silly mortal affairs.

My Thoughts

Who deserves the credit?

I think this book is clearly setting up a lot of questions about pride/honor. The first one that comes to mind is who deserves credit for success? The worker who carries out the plan, or the commander who makes the plan? I'm not sure what the logistics looked like in regards to who did what in the battles that take place before our story begins, but it is clear that Achilles feels he did more, and received less. He is not even satisfied with the credit he has received (in the form of "prizes"). He says to Agamemnon, "Never when the Achaeans sack any rich city of the Trojans do I receive so good a prize as you do, though it is my hands that do the better part of the fighting. When the sharing comes, your share is far the largest, and I, forsooth, must go back to my ships, take what I can get and be thankful, when my labour of fighting is done." So as is usually the case in politics, I think Achilles is taking advantage of a crisis to voice opinions he's been bottling up about his own worth. He thinks he should get more than Agamemnon because he has done more in his view. So one funny thought I have is, what would Achilles' stance be if he had received Chryseis, and Agamemnon had received Briseis? Would he have been so eager to give her back, or is his eagerness tied to his resentment of Agamemnon?

Funnily enough, I think this is an age old question. I think this fight continues even to today. Blue collar vs. white collar, proletariat vs bourgeoisie, laborer vs planner. This argument still echoes throughout the halls of society, and people still utilize corrupt tactics to enforce their stance. Who's right and who's wrong? Who knows?

Personally I think the best determinant of the answer to such questions is the free market. I generally think that money flows towards the people and organizations impacting the most people, and away from those who are not as impactful. You are welcome to disagree with me in the comments.

Pride over a gift?

The next point kind of comes out of the first. I heard it in an analysis video of this book, and it was that Agamemnon believes he deserves more credit because he worked more to have the skills he has. The view is that because Achilles has divine heritage, he has received his gifts from the gods, and thus doesn't deserve as much credit for having them. This is quite an interesting idea (again still true today). It brings to mind the famous quote from President Barack Obama "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." My assumption is the rest of this work is going to give Homer's opinion on the answer to this question, but it is already clear who the gods agree with in this fictional narrative. They side with Achilles over Agamemnon, and there's certainly a reason Achilles has received the gifts he has received.

Again this question is still true today. I think back to Mozart and other child prodigies seemingly gifted by God, and I tend to give Mozart a lot of credit despite the enormous talent which he naturally had. Because I look at the earliest of Mozart, and the latest, and can see the remarkable growth. Heck, even remarkable growth between 25 year old Mozart and 35 year old Mozart. Mozart was a rare case among child prodigies because he did not just coast along with the talents he had, but rather he was always trying to learn and become better. This was especially catalyzed by his discovery of the music of Bach and Handel. All to say, could anybody be Mozart? No he had an amazing starting place. But even Mozart could have not been Mozart had he played his hand differently. So I like to think everyone deserves credit for their accomplishments wherever they started.

Wisdom in the face of rage

I think the most profound occurrence in this book was when Agamemnon and Achilles were about to fight, but Athena (representing wisdom) advocated against it, and despite the rage of Achilles (which this whole story is about), he listened to wisdom over rage, and avoided the fight. Many great men in history have not been wise in the heat of the moment (Alexander Hamilton literally dueling someone comes to mind), and I think the Ancient Greek's emphasis on Wisdom in this scene is very profound (all-be-it through a mythical god that is not real).

Is pride good?

This is the main question I would like to address in this article, and invite you to respond to.

I think this book overlooked a question that it should have addressed, "is pride a good thing?" The baseline assumption of this story so far is "yes". Homer is treating the story like one of these two men should receive honor and pride for their work, and I think that assumption is false.

Biblically, pride is the root of all sin. It is man's pride that leads him to take the judgement of right and wrong for himself, and man's pride that continues to propagate such mortal judgements above God's own judgements. Instead of relying on the judgement of God, every man is prideful and forms his own judgements which often contradict the judgements of God, and the judgements of other men. This leads to conflict and sin (as is the case in this story).

Coincidentally, there is actually a story in the bible quite similar to this one. In 1 Samuel 15 Saul is God's brand new anointed king, and is ordered by God to totally destroy the Amalekites. He is not to spare anyone, or even their livestock. But Saul spares their king, and takes him as his prisoner as well as livestock. Saul claims that this was so that he could honor God, but by disobeying God, Saul is dishonoring Him. Not just that, but Saul took Agag prisoner for the same reason that both Achilles and Agamemnon take their captives: as a trophy to demonstrate his own accolades and remind the people why he is king. It is this action that begins the downfall of Saul's reign, and leads to the reign of David. Another interesting point to consider is that it is the Amalekites (who continue to exist because of Saul's decision) who eventually raid Israel and bring the kingdom down except for Judah.

All that is to say, I think the Greeks were wrong in their view of pride. I do not think pride is good, and I think that will actually be demonstrated in this story. My assumption is that the Achaeans will suffer greatly because of Achilles' and Agamemnon's pride. They will begin dying and losing battles all because of Achilles' pride.

Conclusion

I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I think this book is addressing, and welcome any discussion in the comments. I will be upvoting comments that demonstrate insight and contribute to an overarching discussion. Have a good day everyone!