Epic Strategies
Identifying Epic Concerns
Desire
Notable characters seek to demonstrate excellence (aręte) as a means to
fame, to a place in stories and memories which outlast death. Fame is
competitive: you win by surpassing others, particularly others also
worthy of fame. God-like Achilles and god-like Helen are more or less
than good or reasonable. As Aristotle makes clear in his analysis of
pride, only the superior few are capable of aręte. When all are
excellent, excellence becomes a means to self-satisfaction, not an
incentive to earn real praise, real respect.
Character
Those who accomplish the most, under the most difficult of
circumstances, deserve to be remembered. In a world ending in death
(shadows inhabit the underworld, almost empty shells animated only by
the memory of the living, by a fame that outlasts death). Notable
characters gain support from deities who wish to demonstrate particular
powers. Notable characters may appear as godly, but
support heightens human capabilities. Heroes would be less
without the support of divinities, but divinities do not make of weak
characters credible heroes. Heroes seek to rise above others, to gain
fame, to establish recognition by competition in war and in love.
Settings
Characters act in specific circumstances.
What they do relates to particular times, places, circumstances.
Attention to the natural world builds resources for human engagements.
Attention to differences in culture defines allies and enemies.
Notable Greeks inhabit a natural world, sensing and
acting as animals. Like the centaur who tutors Achilles, heroes see
themselves as fellow inhabitants of natural environments. Culture grows
out of nature.
Characters
identify with peers, those sharing a quest for fame, those recognizing a
hierarchy in which proud heroes are few, and life generally is short.
Fellow fighters in the forefront of battle compete, but share common
bonds.
Characters
recognize personal bonds to particular gods or goddesses, and hope to be
favored by those sympathetic in temperament and in position.
Gods, Goddesses & Fate
Zeus appears (usually) as the most powerful
of Greek divinities, but he is far from omnipotent. Polytheistic deities
preside over varied and competing activities.
Zeus presides above (lightning manifests his
powers). Poseidon rules at sea (tidal waves and volcanic eruptions
manifest his powers). Hades governs among shades in the underworld
(Sleep anticipates his powers).
Hera organizes allegiances, Athena
encourages ingenuity, Aphrodite incites passion.
Lesser powers inhabit and govern local
settings. Thetis inhabits local seas, Scamander inhabits his river.
No actions worth attention and mention are
without costs. Thetis and Andromache come to appreciate that Ares spares
not the brave man, but the coward. No credible characters have all
desirable characters, and no credible characters can avoid limitations.
Heroes manifest not perfect character but a web of traits credible as
related components of an actual individual. In the heat of battle,
passion more often than reason fuels action.
Notable characters eventually discover Fate,
the governor of significant actions. Without reason or purpose, Fate
arises as the power which determines death, manifested at the end, but
incorporating prior events. In the beginning chaos ruled. Order
(including that associated with divinities) arises, but no one governs
all, and none will last. Eventually chaos rules.
Navigating Events
Since
desires are often competitive, beginning with hunting for food, leading to competitive pursuits of suitable mates, often ending in early
death, few courses of action (if any) succeed without substantial costs.
Incidents in the Iliad do not progress predictably: all roads
are crooked. Survivors shift course according to changing
circumstances
Since
gods and goddesses abound, even the most powerful of the gods, Zeus,
hardly controls his fellow deities. Moreover, Fate finally intervenes in
many crucial moments, and Greek divinities are powerless against
Fate.
Homer's
Iliad engages listeners in the unfolding of consequences from a simple
event: the judgment of Paris, a prince of Troy.
Greek
audiences would know the story, Homer’s recitations would immerse
listeners in the conditions in which stories actually develop, rather than
illustrate pre-existing values. Here is the legend:
Bernard
Knox recounts the story in his introduction to Robert Fagle’s
introduction. Bullfinch offers a more detailed summary. He begins with the
judgment of Paris:
Minerva
was the goddess of wisdom, but on one occasion she did a very foolish
thing; she entered into competition with Juno and Venus for the prize of
beauty. It happened thus: At the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis all the
gods were invited with the exception of Eris, or Discord. Enraged at her
exclusion, the goddess threw a golden apple among the guests, with the
inscription, “For the fairest.” Thereupon Juno, Venus, and Minerva
each claimed the apple. Jupiter, not willing to decide in so delicate a
matter, sent the goddesses to Mount Ida, where the beautiful shepherd
Paris was tending his flocks, and to him was committed the decision. The
goddesses accordingly appeared before him. Juno promised him power and
riches, Minerva glory and renown in war, and Venus the fairest of women
for his wife, each attempting to bias his decision in her own favour.
Paris decided in favour of Venus and gave her the golden apple, thus
making the two other goddesses his enemies. Under the protection of
Venus, Paris sailed to Greece, and was hospitably received by Menelaus,
king of Sparta. Now Helen, the wife of Menelaus, was the very woman whom
Venus had destined for Paris, the fairest of her sex. She had been
sought as a bride by numerous suitors, and before her decision was made
known, they all, at the suggestion of Ulysses, one of their number, took
an oath that they would defend her from all injury and avenge her cause
if necessary. She chose Menelaus, and was living with him happily when
Paris became their guest. Paris, aided by Venus, persuaded her to elope
with him, and carried her to Troy, whence arose the famous Trojan war,
the theme of the greatest poems of antiquity, those of Homer and Virgil.
Engagement in the Iliad depends on participation in the conditions in
which thought, feeling, desire and action move. We know that Aphrodite,
the goddess of passion, will arouse in Helen uncontrollable desire, and
that Paris will also develop an uncontrollable passion for Helen. But
Aphrodite has materials with which to work. What makes these two, Helen
and Paris, so suited to passion?
How might Helen contrast the appeals of
Menelaus and of Paris? Does Sparta differ from Troy? When Agamemnon and
Achilles later clash, the argument depends as well on contrasting
personalities and functions, not just on good or bad judgment.
When
Paris and Menelaus confront each other in Book 3 we can feel and
understand the very different characters of this Greek and Trojan.
When
Helen anticipates their encounter, we can feel through her recollections,
her initial desire for her husband, her later passion for the impressive
visitor Paris, and her current homesickness.
When
Achilles and Agamemnon argue, we can follow the competing claims of a
commander and of the greatest of fighters: the commander will not accept
insubordination; the fighter feels his actions determine victory, so he
should be preeminent.
By
the beginning of the Iliad the war has stretched out for nine years. How
have actions proceeded? Consider the meeting, man to man, between Paris
and Menelaus in Book 3. It is to decide the fate of each, the future of
Helen, and the outcome of the war. But when Menelaus gains his advantage,
Paris eludes him. Indeed, the climax of the War is to be the confrontation
of the Greek Achilles and the Trojan Hector. We know that Achilles will
kill Hector. But the triumph of Achilles does not satisfy Achilles,
initially so focused on preeminence, and it does not end the war.
Consider
the truce in Book 4. Pandarus is tricked by Athena into winging his arrow
towards his aggrieved enemy. As the disguised Athena claims, a fatal wound
would end Greek involvement. Listeners know, of course, that Pandarus is
tricked, that Pandarus will fail. But the empathic and shrewd attention to
how Pandarus performs is far more inviting than the simple fact of
trickery. Pandarus will not achieve his aim, but his extraordinary skills
as an archer deserve and gain respect.
Telling Stories
Pandarus
aims to end the war, to save himself, his family and his city, to earn fame, a place in the stories to come fails. But Greek listeners appear far
more interested in the credibility of the archer, his temperament,
experience, technique, than in trickery that make all such concern moot.
Greeks engaged in story-telling emphasize the struggle, not simply the
difference between success and failure. How characters act is the guide
for respect. Incidents in Homer seldom proceed as expected. Listeners (and
readers) as well as Greek and Trojan participants can anticipate
surprises, can appreciate the variations and limitations real mortals
enjoy and endure. We may come to admire people who know the price of
actions.
What
enables you to soldier on, listening still
in such unpromising
circumstances?
|