Gods in Iliad, Talman Kip

The Gods of the "Iliad" and the Fate of Troy
Author(s): A. Maria van Erp Taalman Kip

Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 53, Fasc. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 385-402
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4433117 .
Accessed: 15/08/2013 03:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GODS OF THE MAD AND
THE FATE OF TROY
BY
A. MARIA VAN ERP TAALMAN KIP
Ever since antiquity the gods of the Iliad have been a stumbling
block: in the view of Homer's ancient admirers the behaviour of
his gods, especially Zeus, ought to have a moral basis, since oth-
erwise they would not feel comfortable about their admiration for
the poems. Plato sacrificed his admiration on the altar of his indig-
nation, and banned Homer from his ideal state. Allegorizing inter-
preters solved the problem by arguing that Homer's gods were not
meant to be gods; if Apollo is actually the heat of the sun, we need
not be bothered by his morals.1) Christian readers were sometimes
willing to forgive Homer because he was not actually at fault, hav-
ing been born too early to be a Christian.2) Down through the ages
Homer has been
alternately attacked and defended on this point,
and I am convinced that the desire to justify the ways of the Homeric
gods has not died out. Otherwise I cannot explain why a number
of scholars, in discussing the gods and their reasons for dealing with
men as they do, consistently ignore the narrator, disregarding what
he tells us and filling in what he does not.
This striving to justify the actions of the
gods appears to be
related to a desire for poetic justice. This desire would be satisfied
if, in the Iliad, men were punished for their evil deeds or their
morally wrong decisions, but did not suffer for reasons that were
inexplicable or morally neutral. The existence of human guilt and
divine justice would take the sting out of the poem, and render it
less disturbing: we might even come to the conclusion that nothing
1) See Heraclitus, '??????? ???????ata, 6.3-6; 8.1-6. It appears to be utterly

unfair, he says, that when Apollo takes revenge on Agamemnon, he makes inno-
cent soldiers his victims instead of the general himself. But Heraclitus is convinced
that Homer is not referring to a god, but to the heat of the sun, the actual cause
of the pestilence.
2) See, for instance, the Essay of Thomas Parnell that precedes the translation
of Pope (1.67-70 in the edition of Maynard Mack, London-New Haven, 1967).
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 Mnemosyne,Vol. LIII, Fase. 4

386 A. MARIA VAN ERP TAALMAN KIP
bad will befall us as long as we make the right decisions and com-
mit no evil. But are we justified in attributing to Homer such a
simplistic view of life? Of course, if that is what he says, we must

accept it, but does he? I shall explore this question with special ref-
erence to the downfall of Troy.
In discussing the Homeric gods it should be a guiding principle
to make a distinction between two sources of information: on the
one hand, the human characters and, on the other hand, the nar-
rator, who reveals to us much more about the gods than the human
characters can possibly know.3) It is the narrator who makes it pos-
sible for us to attend their assemblies and to learn what Zeus has
decided to do.
The human characters, by contrast, must rely on
oracles and
omens, and despite the frequent immediate contact
between certain heroes and certain gods, their knowledge is far
more limited than ours. Even when they believe that they know
the will of the gods, they may be quite mistaken. Thus Agamemnon
is convinced that Zeus has deceived him and has failed to keep his
promise that Troy will be conquered (9.18-22), while we know that
Troy will indeed fall in the end and that the present setback is only
temporary. Later this will be clear to Agamemnon, too; the will of
the gods is expressed in events. There are cases, however, in which
we are told about things the human characters will never know,
and obviously we cannot ignore such information.
One of the most striking examples of information that is revealed
only to us is found in Iliad 3 and 4. Let us look at what is hap-
pening here from the perspective of the human characters. When

Hector proposes ending the war by means of a single combat
between Menelaos and Alexandros, the two parties agree to a truce
and swear an oath that they will abide by the outcome of the duel.
Menelaos is winning, but then all of a sudden Alexandros mysteri-
ously disappears. The men in the field do not understand what has
happened and search for him in vain. Then Pandaros wounds

Menelaos by a treacherous arrow shot?a violation of the truce
which results in the renewal of hostilities.
3) This principle tends to be neglected, although not by all scholars. Yamagata

draws the line very carefully. Her first chapter is entided: "Moral functions attrib-
uted to the gods", attributed, that is, by the human characters. She proves to be
well aware that such an attribution does not mean that the gods actually display
the moral preoccupations they are credited with.

THE GODS OF THE ILIAD AND THE FATE OF TROY 387
As Menelaos is about to throw his spear at Alexandros, he prays

to the highest god:
?e? a?a, d?? te?sas?a? d ?e p??te??? ???' e???e,

d??? ????a?d???, ?a? ???? ?p? ?e?s? d??ass??,
df?a t?? ??????s? ?a? ???????? a????p??
?e???d???? ?a?? ???a?, ? ?e? f???t?ta pa??s??.
'My lord Zeus, grant that I may punish the man who wronged me
unprovoked, noble Alexandros, and subdue him under my hands, so
that many a man, in the future also, will shrink from wronging his
host, who shows him kindness.' (3.351-4)
Later on in the Iliad he again appeals to Zeus when he calls out

to the Trojans:
... ??d? t? ???f

????? ?????e??te? ?a?ep?? ?de?sate ?????
?e?????, ?? t? p?t' ???? d?af???se? p???? a?p??
?? ?e? ?????d??? a????? ?a? ?t??ata p????
?a? ???es?' ??????te?, ?pe? f???es?e pa?' a?t??
'You were not afraid in your heart for the grievous wrath of loudthun-
dering Zeus, Zeus Xeinios, who will once destroy your city; you, who
recklessly carried off my lawful wife and many possessions, when she
herself offered you hospitality.' (13.623-627)4)
And indeed, it is only natural for him to expect Zeus to detest the
man who so flagrandy violated the laws of hospitality, not only the
man himself, but also his fellow citizens, who condoned what he did.
Likewise, it is only natural that Agamemnon is convinced that
Zeus, who was called upon when the oath was sworn, will not tol-
erate its violation:
e? ?a? e?? t?de ??da ?at? f???a ?a? ?at? ????? ?

esseta? ??a? ?t' ?? p?t' ????? "????? ???
?a? ???a??? ?a? ?a?? ????e??? ????????,
?e?? d? sf? ?????d?? ????????, a????? ?a???,
a?t?? ?p?sse??s?? ??e???? a???da p?s?
t?sd' ?pat?? ??t????
4) I am not sure about ?pe?. The translation 'when' may be wrong, since tem-
poral ?pe? is not, as a rule, followed by an imperfect tense. Janko prefers 'since',
but I do not quite understand his explanation: "There is irony in 'you went away
taking my wife for no reason (???), since she gave you hospitality' ".

Tor I know quite well in my heart and my mind: there will be a

day when it will be done with Troy and Priam and the people of
Priam with the good ashen spear, and when Zeus, Kronos' son, who
dwells in the aether, will himself shake his dark aegis against all of
them, angry at this deceit.' (4.163-168).
And once again, when he urges his troops forward into battle, he
exclaims:
???e???, ?? p? t? ?e??ete ?????d?? ?????*

?? ?a? ep? ?e?d?ss? pat?? ?e?? esset' a?????,
a??' ?? pe? p??te??? ?pe? d???a d???sa?t?,
t?? ?t?? a?t?? t??e?a ???a ??pe? ed??ta?,
??e?? a?t* ??????? te f??a? ?a? ??p?a t???a
????e? e? ??ess??, ?p?? pt???e???? e???e?.
'Argives, do not cease from the tempestuous battle, for father Zeus
will be in truth our helper, and they who were first to violate the
truce, their tender flesh the vultures will devour, and their wives and
their young children we shall carry off on our ships, when we have
captured their town.' (4.234-239)
This then is the perspective of the human characters. Let us now

look at our own information. First of all, we know that it was thanks
to Aphrodite?who was more interested in ensuring the safety of
her favourite than in ending the war?that Menelaos was denied
total victory. However, her One-man campaign' is not decisive.
Despite Alexandros'disappearance, the Greeks claim the victory,
and although we do not hear the Trojans' reaction, the situation
is still more or less open. Things are decided on Olympus, where
the gods?witnessed only by us?are assembled. Zeus, like Agamem-
non, concludes that Menelaos has won and asks 'What next: war
again or peace?'
In the lines that precede Zeus' speech we are told that his words
were 'jeering' or 'mocking'. Does this refer to the whole speech
(4.7-19) or only to 7-12? Opinions are divided on this point. According
to some scholars, Zeus is serious when he proposes a permanent
peace, while others maintain that it is clear from the omens related
by Odysseus (2.308-329; 350-353) that the fate of Troy was decided
long ago. Flaich (20, note 27) rejects this argument, maintaining
that we cannot know whether Calchas' interpretation of the spar-

row omen was correct.

However, this objection is not a valid one,
for whatever the case in real life, in epic poetry and tragedy seers
are always right. I am convinced, therefore, that the fate of Troy
has indeed already been decided. But this does not imply that the
divine discussion as a whole is not a serious affair. It has often been
said that Pandaros' treachery is a re-enactment of Paris' initial
offence. In the same way, the scene on Olympus must be seen as
a re-enactment of the negotiations which, at some time in the past,
sealed the fate of Troy.5) Apparently the narrator wanted us to
know why the gods passed this sentence on Troy.
Hera's furious reaction (25-29) arouses Zeus' anger. There is no
longer any mockery in his words when he retorts:
da??????, t? ?? se ???a??? ???????? te pa?de?

t?ssa ?a?? ?????s??, ? t' ?spe???? ?e?ea??e??
'????? ??a?ap??a? ???t??e??? pt???e????;
e? de s? ?' e?se????sa p??a? ?a? te??ea ?a???
???? ?e??????? ???a??? ???????? te pa?da?
?????? te ???a?, t?te ?e? ????? ??a??sa??.
'Foolish you are; in what respect you are wronged by Priam and
Priam's children so much that you fiercely yearn to annihilate the
town of well-built Troy? If you would enter the gates and walls of
Troy and would devour the flesh of Priam and Priam's children and
the other Trojans, then you would calm your anger.' (31-36)
However, despite his indignation, Zeus is prepared to let Hera have

her way, on one condition: if ever in the future it is his wish to des-
troy a city that is dear to her, he expects her to let him have his way:
?a? ?a? e?? s?? d??a e??? ?????t? ?e ???f-

a? ?a? ?p' ?e??f te ?a? ???a?f ?ste??e?t?
?a?et???s? p???e? ?p???????? a????p??,
t??? ??? pe?? ???? t??s?et? "????? ???,
?a? ???a??? ?a? ?a?? ????e??? ????????.
?? ?a? ??? p?t? ????? ?de?et? da?t?? ??s??,
?????? te ???s?? te? t? ?a? ?????e? ???a? ??e??.
5) Therefore I do not agree with Kirk, when he comments ad 4.6: "pa?a???d??,

'deviously', because Zeus really needs to get the fighting restarted to fulfil his
promise to Thetis". It is not the ????? that is at stake here, but the gods' initial
decision about the fate of Troy.

Tor I gave you this, voluntarily, but with unwilling heart. For from
all the towns of earth-dwelling men that are situated beneath the sun
and the sky, holy Ilios was by far the most honoured by me in my
heart, and so were Priam and the people of Priam with the good
ashen spear. For never has my altar lacked a fairly-shared meal and
drink-offerings and the savour of burnt sacrifice. For this is the gift
of honour that is due to us.' (4.43-49)
He speaks about Troy as if it has already ceased to exist.

Hera readily agrees to Zeus' condition and offers him Argos,
Sparta or Mycene. At her request Zeus sends Athena to the battlefield
to revive the war:
a??a ???' ?? st?at?? ???e ?et? ???a? ?a? '??a????,

pe???? d' ?? ?e ???e? ?pe???da?ta? '??a????
????s? p??te??? ?p?? d???a d???sas?a?.
'Go quickly to the army camp, to the Trojans and the Achaeans, and
try to bring about that the Trojans take the initiative and are the
first to harm the bold Achaeans, in violation of the treaty.' (4.70-72)
And Athena, on arriving on earth, talks Pandaros into his treach-

erous act.
To a first-time listener or reader this discussion
on Olympus may
come as something of a shock. The
prayer of Menelaos, who under-
standably expected Zeus to second him, is simply ignored by the
father of men and gods. Moreover, we are told that he does not
detest the Trojans at all, but rather that they are dearer to him
than all others, not because of their moral qualities but for their
generous offerings. Nonetheless he sacrifices them to the implaca-
ble hatred and rancour of Hera and Athena, and personally orders
his daughter to bring about the violation of an oath that men
expected him to respect. When afterwards Agamemnon appears con-
vinced that Zeus resents this violation, we realize that he does not
even begin to fathom the intentions and motives of the gods. The
human characters do not know, and will never know, that the oath
was violated at the instigation of Zeus himself.
Scholars have tried to mitigate the harshness and cynicism of this
passage, and keep divine justice intact by arguing that the gods
merely take advantage of human shortcomings. According to Mueller
(115), for example, Pandaros is "deceived in the core of his being".
Schmitt (83-4) says we are explicidy told that Athena is searching

for precisely this man among the Trojans; apparendy she expects
him to be a willing victim, but his "freie Selbstbestimmung" is in
no way abrogated by her promptings. He is free to say no.6) However,
the narrator does not tell us why Athena selected Pandaros, and
since the 'core of his being* is unknown to us, such arguments are
somewhat circular: Athena selected him for this treacherous act
because, as is clear from
the act, his disposition was vile and fool-
ish. Admittedly, the narrator calls him ?f???, but this judgement
rests on his present actions, and is hardly a generad characteristic.
A more obvious reason for Athena's preference is the fact that she
needs a good archer and his skill in this area is known to us. We
are told about it in 2.827:
???da???, f ?a? t???? ?p????? a?t?? ed??e?.
'Pandaros, who had received his bow as a gift from Apollo himself.'
This, however, is not the main point. I agree that, on the human
level, Pandaros is guilty: he could have said no. But what is the
upshot of this observation? Would Athena have been at her wit's
end if he had done so, and would she then have resigned herself
to peace and to the survival of Troy? By concentrating on Pandaros'
arrow shot, we are merely dealing with the method that is used by
the gods which, on the divine level, is of secondary importance.
Athena makes use of human only after the decision
beings has been
taken; the decision itself rests with
the gods alone.
Lesky, understandably, sees this as a case of 'Doppelte Motivation':
"Die Schuld der Troer besteht also in der Handlung einer der Ihren,
die durchaus von den G?ttern geplant und ausgel?st wurde. Trotzdem
haben sie die Folgen des Eidbruches bis zumletzten zu tragen" (43).
I cannot entirely concur with his formulation, since in my view
there is no 'trotzdem', either from the perspective of the human
characters, who are unaware of any divine interference and place
all the blame on the Trojans, or from our own perspective. We
6) Cf. Latacz 34: "Sie d?rfen dem Menschen?so haben es vor allem A. Heubeck
und H. Gundert in eindringlichen Analysen nahegelegt?eigentlich immer nur den
Gedanken, die Tat, das Verhalten in den Sinn legen, zu denen er selbst schon
disponiert war". He does not make it clear who it is who does not allow the gods
to act otherwise.

know that Troy must fall in any case, whatever the Trojans do or
do not do; not even perfect virtue can protect them from the ruth-
less vindictiveness of the goddesses.
But why this vindictiveness? Zeus asks Hera for her reasons, but
his question goes unanswered. The listeners probably realized, as
we do, that the narrator chose not to include the judgement of
Paris.7) As Reinhardt argues, this would have been too futile a rea-
son: "Heras Hass ist r?tselhaft, unheimlich, ungeheuerlich. . . . Von
so furchtbarem R?tselcharacter ist die Gottheit" (29). He is undoubt-
edly right: the introduction of such a frivolous topic would have
cancelled out the impact of the grim struggle for power between
Hera and Zeus. Nevertheless Reinhardt defends the authenticity of
24.29-30, although his argument, as Davies (57) observes, is not free
from a certain antinomy: if the narrator deemed the judgement of
Paris too futile a reason in 4, why then did he introduce it in 24?
The authenticity of 29-30 was called into question even in antiq-
uity, and doubts were not confined to these lines alone. According
to ZbT, an unnamed scholar wanted to athetize
altogether 23-30
and Aristarchos, though accepting 23,
rejected 24-30.8) The scho-
liast lists no fewer than eight objections; while not all of them are
valid, a number of them certainly are. I do not intend to examine
all of them here?the details are
by Richardson?but
discussed I
would like to add some observations, in particular in relation to the
hemistich ??e???d??? e?e?' at??. This is not the first time these
words occur in the Iliad?) and Richardson rightly observes that
"without 29-30 one would take this phrase as referring to Paris'
rape of Helen, as at 6.356 and 3.100 (if at?? is right there)".
7) The scholiast (S?? 23) infers from 4.31-32, 3.164, and other passages that
the poet did not know the story of the judgement, but this appears highly improbable.
8) According to Richardson (276, ad 23-30), Aristarchos "does not seem to have
rejected 24, since he is not said to have objected to the parallel 109 (although he
did regard 71-3 as an interpolation)". I am not convinced that this ex silentio
argument is valid, but since 24 is not the actual stumbling block, the question is
not particularly important.
9) The words are used in 3.100 by Menelaos and in 6.356 by Helen. It might
argue against 24.28 that the hemistich is used here, in contrast to the other two
examples, in narrator text, but this argument is not really decisive. In all three
cases there is the varia lectio ?????. In 3.100 it is only Zenodotos who, according
to ?A, proposes at??; in 6.356 most manuscripts have at?? and in 24.28 nearly
all of them. Most editors read at?? three times, righdy I think, but it does not really
influence our interpretation; ?????, too, must refer to Paris' abduction of Helen.

According to Richardson, most of the problems would be solved

by athedzing only 29-30. However, this solution would give rise to
another problem, since the information that Hera, Athena and
Poseidon resent the Trojans, and always did so, because of Paris'
rape of Helen would be rather startling. We have already seen that,
on the human level, Menelaos expects Zeus to punish the Trojans
for Paris' initial
offence, while Zeus himself is not interested in his
role of ZeusXeinios; on the contrary, he has great love for the
Trojans. And now, all of a sudden, we would be told that, on the di-
vine level, ethical considerations are at stake after all, not in the
case of Zeus, but in that of Hera, Athena and Poseidon. Are we
really to believe that the narrator presents this astonishing news in
only three words, and at a point when nearly everything has been
said and done? And
if so, how are we to explain that neither Hera
nor Athena nor Poseidon ever press this argument, and blame Zeus
for his indifference with respect to human morals? In short, athetiz-
ing only 29-30 yields a text that runs counter to everything we have
been told?and not told?up to now.10) If we reject 29-30, then 28
must go too.
So what are we to do? Must we reject 22-30, 23-30, 24-30 or
28-30? I am not entirely sure, although I would probably eliminate
28-30 at least. However, even if we retain the passage in its entirety,
the overall picture we have been presented with in book 4 does not
essentially change. It is too late for that and, moreover, the per-
sonal pique of the goddesses can hardly be regarded as a morally
acceptable reason for their hatred, and for the destruction of Troy
to which it gives rise.
Apart from book 4 and possibly book 24, we are never informed
about the reasons of the gods for entertaining their pro- or anti-
Trojan feelings. Paris' offence is never a topic of discussion on
10) Nicolai, without even discussing the text of the passage, uses it twice, but
in different ways. On p. 150 he argues that Hera and Athena are enemies of
Aphrodite because of the judgement of Paris, while on p. 160 we read: "Dieser
G?ttertrug findet seine Rechtfertigung?die die Tragik freilich nicht aufhebt?
darin, dass Hektor und Troja infolge ihrer Solidarit?t mit dem Gastrechtsbrecher
Paris (mythologisch gesprochen) sich die Feindschaft Ath?nes und Heras zugezo-
gen haben,...". He does not seem to realize that the first statement is only valid
if 29-30 is retained, while the second one presupposes the athetizing of these lines,
since otherwise it is quite simply contrary to the text.

Olympus. We are left with the information that Zeus, though he

sympathizes with the Trojans, sacrifices Troy to Hera and Athena,
whose hatred is either not motivated at all or perhaps?rather late
in the poem?only by the judgement of Paris. But not all scholars
consider this acceptable: there are those who believe that morality
must play a role somewhere. Here similes provide the solution, espe-
cially the one in 16.384-393:
?? d' ?p? ?a??ap? p?sa ?e?a??? ??????e ????

??at' ?p????f, dte ?a???tat?? ??e? ?d??
?e??, dte d? ?' a?d?ess? ??tess??e??? ?a?ep???,
?? ??? e?? ????? s????a? ?????s? ????sta?,
e? de d???? ???s?s?, ?e?? ?p?? ??? ??????te?*
t?? de te p??te? ?e? p?ta??? p?????s? ????te?,
p???a? de ???t?? t?t* ?p?t?????s? ?a??d?a?,
?? d' a?a p??f????? ?e???a ste?????s? ????sa?
?? ????? ?p????, ?????e? d? te e??' a????p??*
?? ?pp?? ???a? ?e???a ste?????t? ????sa?.
'Just as the whole dark earth is weighed down by a hurricane on a

day in late summer, on which Zeus pours out a turbulent mass of
water, when he is wrathful and angry at men who in an assembly
in a violent way pass crooked sentences and drive dike out, without
worrying about the revengeful mien of the gods; all their rivers are
overflowing, and the torrents cut off many hillsides, and loudly they
roar while streaming headlong from the mountains into the surging
sea, and the farmlands of men are damaged; just so the Trojan horses
roared loudly while running'.
It is generally that the contents

agreed of 386-387 in particular,
with its Hesiodic ring, are exceptional. Several scholars have sug-
gested that the lines are an interpolation,11) but Janko, citing Griffin,
argues that the image "is less isolated than it seems: when Zeus
grieves for his son he sends bloody rain (459), when he plans a
grim batde he thunders all night (7.478), and when angry he lashes
the earth until she groans (2.781-3)" (365, ad 384-93). However,
this observation is hardly relevant: none of these passages have any-
11) See Janko, 364-366, ad 384-93 and 386-8. On 365 he notes: "The storm
shows Zeus's wrath at men's crooked judgements; this is stated in three verses, too
many for a redundant detail". However, it is not Zeus' wrath in itself that seems
un-Homeric, but only the reason behind it, stated in two verses. 386 is anchored
in the whole of the simile, but 387-8 can easily be left out.

thing to say about Zeus punishing mortals for their injustice. None-
theless, for the sake of argument, I am prepared to consider the
entire simile genuine and to discuss its possible implications.
After remarking on the explicit and implicit points of compari-
son and referring to 21.522-524, Janko comments: "here the Trojans
are linked with wrongdoing, and the poet comes near to an open
justification of Troy's fall, all the more persuasive because we are
left to infer it for ourselves". This comment is somewhat puzzling,
but the sentences which follow seem to offer some clarification:
"The Iliad's tragic vision emphasizes the amoral gods of myth, but
we sometimes glimpse 'an underlying conviction that these powers
are on the side of right (G.M. Calhoun
and justice' in Companion
449; cf. Lloyd-Jones, Justice of^eus Iff.). In such contexts 'Zeus' and
'the gods' are rarely distinct. Cf. Zeus' interest in the Abioi as
paragons of justice, Menelaos' faith that Zeus Xenios must punish
the Trojans, the muted criticism of Paris' morality or the gods'
wrath over an unburied body (13.4-7, 13.620-39, 13.660-72nn.,
22.358)" (365, ad 384-93). Apparently Janko is on the lookout for
any detail that might support the notion of divine justice, but these
examples will simply not do. 13.620-639 and 22.358 are spoken by
a human character and must for this reason be left out in this con-
nection.12) If we infer from 13.4-7 that Zeus is interested in the
Abioi because of their justice, we must, I am afraid, also infer that
he is interested in the Hippemolgoi because of their milk drinking.
The criticism of Paris' morality is so muted that
only an elaborate
construction devised by an interpreter can make
it heard.13) And
even if we are prepared to hear it, it has nothing to say about the
12) Despite his clairvoyance at the moment of death, Hector finds a connec-
tion that will prove to be non-existent. He prophesies exactly how Achilles will
die, but it will not be because of Hector's body; when Achilles has returned it to
Priam, it can no longer be a ?e?? ?????a. Achilles must die anyway.
13) Janko reasons as follows: "Paris.... is angered by the fall of his guest-friend
and shoots poor Eukhenor.... It is ironic that he is trying to defend xeniajust after
Menelaos reminds us of his fateful crime against it (624-7). Harpalion would still be
alive had Paris not stolen Helen in the first place; the criticism of his morality is
muted but unmistakable". If the text told us that Paris 'acts to defend xenia\ as if
the general principle were his concern, there might be some irony in this. But we
are only told: t?? de ????? ???a ????? ?p??ta?????? ?????? ??e??????? ?? e?? p???s??
?et? ?af?a???ess?? I do not think this is enough to support Janko's construction.

justice of the gods. However, it is more important to reflect on the

exact meaning of Janko's reasoning and on its consequences.
If I understand him correctly, Janko argues that the poet of the
Iliad had no use for moral gods, but could not resist dropping sub-
de hints to his audience that Zeus is not in fact amoral. In the case
of our simile, he undercuts his tragic vision by obliquely assuring
us that Zeus does chastise the Trojans for their wrongful behaviour
and that, no matter what we are told in the story proper, he sees
to it that they get their just deserts. While my version may seem
somewhat exaggerated, I have actually done no more than make
explicit what Janko is implying. And in this explicit form his view
is quite remarkable, in that we would then be dealing with an epic
poet who uses his similes to contradict his own story. Is this indeed
the case? Let us take a closer look.
The simile is the last and most extensive one in a series of three;
in all of them, Zeus is essentially (as in 12.278-289) the weather
god: first he brightens the sky (297-302), then he fills it with clouds,
the forerunners of a hurricane (364-367), and finally he causes the
hurricane itself.
The explicit point of comparison is related to a
detail: roaring noise of the torrents within the simile, and the
the
Trojan horses in the narrative context. The Trojans themselves are
not mentioned explicitly, but the simile as a whole clearly illustrates
the violence they suffer on their headlong flight. The hurricane is
caused Zeus, who is angry; the reason for his anger is, in a
by
sense, only a detail, like the ship-timber in 16.484: it explains, within
the simile, why the carpenters cut the oak, but there is no reason
to associate Sarpedon's death with ship-timber. Likewise there is no
reason to associate the Trojans with the men who are described in
387-88, unless the narrator is urging us to make the connection,
which is definitely not the case. Instead of 'men who pass crooked
sentences', he could have said 'men who do not respect the laws
of hospitality'. As it is, Paris' offence is a far cry from the misde-
meanour described in the simile. He could have focussed on the
suffering of the human victims, both in the simile and in the nar-
rative context. As it is, he focusses on the noise of the torrents and
the horses. And since the listeners know that, as a character in the
story, the sovereign god loves the Trojans and is not himself bent
on their destruction, they will not be particularly inclined to iden-

tify the Zeus of the simile with the Zeus of the story. Small won-
der then that Janko resorts to quite an astonishing ex silentio argu-
ment, an argument that amounts to: it is not there and precisely
for that reason it is convincingly present. Why is it that 'we must
infer it for ourselves'? It is not, in my view, the poet who imposes
this obligation on us.14)
As noted above, there is one more simile that is deployed in the
interests of demonstrating divine justice. In 21.522-525 we read:
?? d' ?te ?ap??? ??? e?? ???a??? e???? ???ta?

aste?? a?????????, ?e?? d? e ????? ????e,
p&s? d* e???e p????, p?????s? de ??de* ef??e?,
?? ????e?? ???ess? p???? ?a? ??de* e???e?.
Just as when smoke rises to the broad sky from a town that is burn-
ing; the wrath of the gods sends it upwards; it causes toil for all and
sorrow for many; just so Achilles caused toil and sorrow for the
Trojans.'
Moulton comments: "These lines, together with the great d??? simile
at XVI.384f., are the closest the poet comes to an explicit justifi-
cation of the Trojans' destruction through the plan of Zeus. It is
not explicidy stated here that the burning city is Troy, or that
its people have been unjust; it is only said that the city has been
afflicted by the gods' wrath. Yet divine anger is not generally arbi-
trary in Homer, whether or not it conforms to the requirements of
modern notions of retributive justice. And the Trojans, at XVI.393
and XXI.525, are
explicitly linked with cities that have incurred
the gods' displeasure" (110-111). It will be clear from this comment
that Moulton is in two minds about the question, but because he
does not actually say so, his argument is rather confused. He begins
14) It is not only Janko, of course, who makes the most of this simile. It arises
time and again when divine justice is discussed. Erbse, for instance, argues: "Zeus
kann die Partei der Frevler (d.h. der Troer) nicht l?nger triumphieren lassen. Mit
seiner Umkehr bekundet er doch wohl dass er sich verpflichtet f?hlt, der gesch?digten
Partei zum Siege zu verhelfen, d.h. die ?belt?ter zu strafen (wie das in dem
Gleichnis ? 384-393 als sein Grundsatz zum Ausdruck kommt)" (229-230). Although
he does not explicitly connect the men in the simile with the Trojans, the simile
is nevertheless the foundation of the words 'doch wohl', which indicate that Zeus
does not actually say so. Here, too, the Zeus of the story is automatically identified
with the Zeus of the simile.

by linking this with the other one, and by referring explic-

simile
itly to the 'd??? simile' at 16.384 ff., he suggests that we are deal-
ing here with a moral justification. Next he concedes that the people
in this simile are not referred to as unjust. But then he goes on to
observe that 'divine anger is not generally arbitrary in Homer', so
that he seems to be retracting this concession.
Finally, however,
from 'whether or not'
onwards, he implies that the wrath of the
gods may have nothing to do with justice. Moreover, in note 60,
he refers not only to Lloyd-Jones,15) but also to Fenik: 'especially
216-221, where the wraths of Poseidon and Helios are singled out
as essentially arbitrary'. In this way he obscures the central issue
and makes no attempt to try to explain why the poet should offer
such justification only in similes and not, for example, by quoting
the words of Zeus.
In my view, there is no reason to make a problem out of the
simile in 21. Although it is not said in so many words, it is plau-
sible that the town is burning because it has been captured by ene-
mies?a fate that will be Troy's before long. The following step
15) Lloyd Jones discusses the justice of Zeus in relation to the Trojans on pp.
7-8. First he concedes that on the divine level questions of right and wrong play
no role. Next he reminds us of the convictions of Agamemnon and Menelaos con-
cerning Zeus Horkios and Zeus Xeinios and subsequently he asks: "Can we really
feel certain that the eventual triumph of the Greeks has no connection with the
undoubted truth that Paris provoked the quarrel by abducting Helen? That is
hinted in the last book of the Iliad, and the old fashion of dismissing the passage
as an 'interpolation' is now less popular than it once was". Here, too, the phras-
ing betrays a desire to find what is not there. In real life nobody can feel certain
of the motives of the divine power or powers, but in the case of the Iliad we have
a narrator to inform us. And if we retain 24.23-30, we still have no proof what-
soever, since in that case the goddesses are angry because of the judgement and
not because of Helen's abduction. When Lloydjones concludes his discussion of
the subject, he asserts: "In terms of human action, his decision is in accord with
the basic principle of justice, that the aggressor must be punished. Is this accord
merely a coincidence? Anyone who accepts the argument I have put forward to
show that the protection of justice must have been one of Zeus' attributes from
the earliest times will hardly think so". However, this reasoning is unsound, since
it amounts to: in Homer's time Zeus was regarded as the protector of justice, and
therefore he must be the protector of justice in the Iliad also, although the nar-
rator does not represent him this way. Lloyd-Jones is clearly confusing the reality
of life and the reality within the poem. Yamagata, on the contrary, is very care-
ful in this respect. She does not reject 11. 387-8, but argues that we are concerned
with 'two levels of moral climate' (92). According to this view there is no relation
between the Zeus of the simile and the Zeus of the story proper.

might be to suppose that the simile implies that Troy, too, will be
the victim of divine wrath. But this is something we knew all along;
we were told in book 4 about the wrath of Hera and Athena. And
since ?e?? is not specified and no reason is given for their wrath,
there is nothing here that points to divine justice and nothing that
runs counter to the story.
As I said at the beginning, it is interesting to see how scholars
supply their readers with explanations that are not provided by the
narrator himself. I quote a few examples.
In addition to his comment on the simile in 16, Janko also assures
us that Zeus "is concerned to punish perjurers and those who wrong
suppliants and xenoi (strangers/hosts/guests); Paris' crime against
Menelaos explains why he must ultimately back the Greeks against
the Trojans. But there are signs that he cares about justice in a
wider sense (16.384-93n.), and his will can be taken to represent
that of his entire family, since the
gods collectively are omniscient
and omnipotent" (5). Zanker, although he discusses the discrepancy
between Agamemnon's expectations and the behaviour of Zeus, never-
theless affirms that the gods are "ultimately prompted by feelings
of outrage and
by some conviction about the independent value of
protecting things like oaths,. .." (32). And on the next page we read:
"Odysseus' words to Polyphemos in the Odyssey are commonly and
rightly quoted as valid for the Iliad as well: "Zeus is the agent who
confers time upon suppliants and guests, Zeus the god of hospital-
ity [xetnios], who accompanies revered guests," so Polyphemos should
"have shame before the gods," or "respect," for Odysseus is his
suppliant (Od. 9,269-71)". Morrison argues that "it is surely one of
Zeus' larger goals to punish those who violate the code of hospi-
tality" (291). Schein holds that the Trojans are consistently repre-
sented as "transgressors, who are morally responsible for their own
ruin" (20). Erbse observes: "Der Gedanke dass Zeus das Recht be-
sch?tzt und das Unrecht
bestraft, steht in der Ilias nicht so im
Vordergrund wie in der Odyssee, er ist aber auch nicht, wie bisweilen
behauptet wird, auf das Gleichnis ? 384?T. beschr?nkt. Man denke
vor allem an den Ausgangspunkt der ganzen Erz?hlung, an Paris'
Vergehen gegen Zeus Xeinios,. . ." (221). And as we know, accord-
ing to Schmitt the gods are certainly not unjust: "Es widerfahrt
jedem von den Menschen nur das was er sich selbst verdient hat

and fur dessen Zustandekommen er in eigener Person die Verant-

wortung tr?gt" (92).
I believe this brief anthology to be fairly representative. All the
statements are designed to justify Homer's gods and all of them
show that their authors are not satisfied with the story he tells us.
Does Zeus love
the Trojans and acquiesce only grudgingly in their
destruction? This cannot be the poet's real intention; Zeus' ultimate
reasons must be sought elsewhere.16) Schein fails to note that, accord-
ing to the narrator, the gods never refer to the moral responsibility
of the Trojans. And as for Schmitt, do the gods become just sim-
ply because?as in the case of Pandaros?they use men to achieve
an immoral goal?
We would do better to listen to the narrator. We should not try
to correct him but rather to understand
why he tells his story as
he does. First of all, we must consider the choices that were open
to him, and acknowledge that the fate of Troy was not among
them, not for reasons of morality, as Nicolai will have it,17) but sim-
ply because the central elements of the traditional stories could not
be varied. For a Greek poet?unless he was a comedian?Troy
could no more be saved than Oedipus could not marry his mother.
Troy had to fall and, needless to say, this could not happen against
the will of the gods.
Let us turn once again to books 3 and 4, and imagine other pos-
sible scenarios. First of all, there is the poet's decision to insert the
episode of the truce and Pandaros' arrow shot, which is immate-
rial to the development of his overall theme. Secondly, there is his
decision to present the episode in this way. He might have chosen
to leave out the divine interference and to make Pandaros act with-
out any prompting from the gods. Or else he might have chosen
a completely different reason for Athena's intervention: Zeus him-
self or one of the other gods might have said that Paris' initial
offence could not
go unpunished and that for this reason the war
had to go on. But apparently this is not what the poet wanted. He
16) Zanker's comparison with the Odysseyis somewhat unfortunate, since Odysseus
is also mistaken about Zeus' ways. He may well expect Zeus to applaud his deed,
but actually the highest god does not obstruct the fulfilment of the Cyclops' curse.
17) "Der Ausgang des Trojanischen Krieges ist f?r den Dichter durch Paris'
anf?ngliches Unrecht an Menelaos vorgezeichnet" (152).

did something else. And in creating this re-enactment of Paris' trans-
gression and of the gods' process of decision, he drew a sharp line

between the human level and the divine, between the motives of
men and those of the gods, between human expectations concern-
ing the gods and their actual behaviour.

Here 'men' must be narrowed down to 'the Greeks'. Trojans The
are defending theircity, and there is no need to justify the war
they are fighting. But the Greeks, who are after all the aggressors,
need a motive, an acceptable justification. A great epic war cannot
be fought for the sake of booty alone. Thus on the Greek side the
war is justified by Paris' misdemeanour which, within the Iliad,
is re-enacted by Pandaros' treachery. And, as we have seen, they
expect the gods to be on their side because they consider it self-
evident that the gods?in any case Zeus?defend the law of hospital-
ity and the sacrosanct nature of oaths. However, the gods do not
meet the expectations of the human characters. They do support
the Greeks, but for reasons that have nothing to do with morality.
They love and they hate, but they never talk about justice. Thus
the narrator gives us the impression Troy that must in any case
fall, that the Trojans are victims of a power that men, however vir-
tous, cannot conquer.
It has often been observed that the poet of the Iliad does not
strive to evoke among his hearers feelings of antagonism towards
the Trojans. We do not see the Greeks as the 'good guys' fighting
the 'bad guys'. The sufferings of the Trojans and the death of
Hector do not inspire feelings of triumph but rather pity. Gould
(42) calls this "part of the lasting legacy of the Homeric imagina-
tion", and I am fairly sure that it is one of the reasons?perhaps
even the main reason?for the lasting emotional impact of the Iliad.
I am also convinced that it is for this reason that the poet made
his gods as he did. From the human point of view, the war must
inevitably be justified, otherwise the Greeks would be guilty of naked
aggression. But if the gods acted for the same reasons and con-
demned the Trojans because of their moral faults, and if Zeus sealed
the fate of Troy as the inevitable consequence of Paris' guilt, then
the balance of sympathy would undoubtedly be disturbed. As it is,
we feel that ultimately the guilt of the Trojans does not matter. As
Redfield (133) observes: "The Homeric theology is a poet's theology".

The poet needed these

gods to open the way for our pity and our
awareness of the human condition. When we try to make them just
and moralistic in spite of their creator, we dehumanize his poem.
1012 GC Amsterdam, Klassiek Seminarium

Oude Turfmarkt 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Malcolm Davies, The Judgementof Pans and Iliad Book XXIV, JHS 101 (1981), 56-62.
Hartmut Erbse, Untersuchungen zur Funktionder G?tterim HomerischenEpos (Berlin 1986).
Egon Flaich, Konsenspnnzip im homerischenOlymp: ?berlegungenzum g?ttlichen Ent-
scheidungsprozess Utas ? 1-72, Hermes 122 (1994), 13-31.
John Gould, Homeric Epic and the Tragic Moment, in: Tom Winnifrith, Penelope
Murray, K.W. Gramsden (ed.), Aspects of the Epic (London 1983), 32-45.
G.S. Kirk (ed.), The Iliad. A Commentary. Vol. 1 (book 1-4), G.S. Kirk (Cambridge
1985); Vol. 4 (13-16), R. Janko (1992); Vol. 6 (21-24), N. Richardson (1993).
Joachim Latacz, Das MenschenbildHomers, Gymnasium 91 (1984), 15-39.
Albin Lesky, G?ttlicheund menschlicheMotivationim HomerischenEpos (Heidelberg 1961).
H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (University of California Press 1971; second ed.
1984).
J.V. Morrison, Kerostasia,the Dictates of Fate, and the Will of ?eus in the Iliad, Arethusa
30 (1997), 273-296.
C. Moulton, Similes in the HomericPoems (G?ttingen 1970).
Martin Mueller, Knowledgeand Delusion in the Iliad, in: John Wright (ed.), Essays on
the Iliad. SelectedModern Criticism(Indiana University Press 1978), 105-123.
Walter Nicolai, Zum Welt- und Geschichtsbild der Utas, in: J.M. Bremer, I.J.F. de Jong,
J. Kalff (ed.), Homer:BeyondOral Poetry.RecentTrendsin HomericInterpretation (Amster-
dam 1987), 145-164.
James M. Redfield, Matureand Culturein the Iliad: the Tragedyof Hector (University of
Chicago Press 1975).
Karl Reinhardt, Das Parisurteil,in: Traditionund Geist (G?ttingen 1960), 16-36; first
published in 1938.
Seth L. Schein, The immortal Hero. An Introductionto Homer's Iliad (University of
California Press 1984).
Arbogast Schmitt, Selbst?ndigkeitund Abh?ngigkeitmenschlichenHandelns bei Homer.
HermeneutischeUntersuchungen zur PsychologieHomers (Stuttgart 1990).
Naoko Yamagata, HomericMorality (Leiden 1993).
Graham Zanker, The Heart of Achilles. Characterizationand PersonalEthics in the Iliad
(University of Michigan Press 1994).


Gods in Iliad, Talman Kip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gods in Iliad, Talman Kip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gods of the "Iliad" and the Fate of Troy

Author(s): A. Maria van Erp Taalman Kip

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

A. MARIA VAN ERP TAALMAN KIP

1) See Heraclitus, '??????? ???????ata, 6.3-6; 8.1-6. It appears to be utterly

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 Mnemosyne,Vol. LIII, Fase. 4

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

simplistic view of life? Of course, if that is what he says, we must

promise that Troy will be conquered (9.18-22), while we know that

only to us is found in Iliad 3 and 4. Let us look at what is hap-

pening here from the perspective of the human characters. When

happened and search for him in vain. Then Pandaros wounds

3) This principle tends to be neglected, although not by all scholars. Yamagata

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

As Menelaos is about to throw his spear at Alexandros, he prays

?e? a?a, d?? te?sas?a? d ?e p??te??? ???' e???e,

Later on in the Iliad he again appeals to Zeus when he calls out

... ??d? t? ???f

e? ?a? e?? t?de ??da ?at? f???a ?a? ?at? ????? ?

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

Tor I know quite well in my heart and my mind: there will be a

???e???, ?? p? t? ?e??ete ?????d?? ?????*

This then is the perspective of the human characters. Let us now

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

row omen was correct.

da??????, t? ?? se ???a??? ???????? te pa?de?

However, despite his indignation, Zeus is prepared to let Hera have

?a? ?a? e?? s?? d??a e??? ?????t? ?e ???f-

5) Therefore I do not agree with Kirk, when he comments ad 4.6: "pa?a???d??,

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

He speaks about Troy as if it has already ceased to exist.

a??a ???' ?? st?at?? ???e ?et? ???a? ?a? '??a????,

And Athena, on arriving on earth, talks Pandaros into his treach-

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

???da???, f ?a? t???? ?p????? a?t?? ed??e?.

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

According to Richardson, most of the problems would be solved

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

Olympus. We are left with the information that Zeus, though he

?? d' ?p? ?a??ap? p?sa ?e?a??? ??????e ????

'Just as the whole dark earth is weighed down by a hurricane on a

It is generally that the contents

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

justice of the gods. However, it is more important to reflect on the

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

?? d' ?te ?ap??? ??? e?? ???a??? e???? ???ta?

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

by linking this with the other one, and by referring explic-

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

and fur dessen Zustandekommen er in eigener Person die Verant-

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

did something else. And in creating this re-enactment of Paris' trans-

gression and of the gods' process of decision, he drew a sharp line

ing the gods and their actual behaviour.

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

The poet needed these

1012 GC Amsterdam, Klassiek Seminarium

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:55:18 AM

You might also like