Hello.
We are now on book 16 of the Iliad (I know, fairly large jump). This chapter is aptly titled “Patroclus Fights and Dies”. The reason for this grim title will become apparent through this “blog” entry.
Patroclus is only aloud to fight in the first place because Achilles allows him too. Patroclus and the Myrmidons are all ready for battle and tired of sitting around. Patroclus wants to fight for that reason and because he believes that it will raise the moral of the Achaeans if they see Achilles’ armor, even if it’s not him underneath. Also, it will scare the Trojans if they think that Achilles has rejoined the fight. Achilles agrees to allow Patroclus wear his armor because of these reasons, and to keep the Trojans away from the ships so the Atrides still have an escape route.
On line 35 (or so), page 413, Patroclus says that Achilles is cursed in his own courage. I think that this could mean two things, though I am not entirely sure which (if either) is correct. I think that it could either mean that Achilles is cursed DESPITE his courage, or, it could mean that Achilles is cursed BECAUSE of his courage. I think that the latter is more likely to be right because of the way the sentence in question is worded. I’m not sure why he says that though, because it seems to me that Achilles is not a coward, and if he was, I don’t think that it would mean he was cursed because of the courage he had.
My question for this one would be, Why does Zeus not grant both parts of Achilles’ prayer (his prayer, if you remember, would be that Patroclus keeps the Trojans off the Achaean ships AND that he returns safely)? Why does he not allow Patroclus to return?
That is what the homework requires; no more I am afraid, as I have a lot of homework.
Goodbye.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Iliad Assignment, Book Nine (pp. 266-275 lines 521-869)
Hello.
The assignment of today is similar to that of yesterday. I am first to ask a question, I think that mine would be, how could Achilles honestly think that the gods will simply let him sail home? He knows that he is to die at Troy, so how can he think that he will be allowed to leave?
My opinion of Achilles, like my opinion of Agamemnon, did not change after I read book nine. Achilles said, rather specifically, that Agamemnon would come begging Achilles for help, and that he would refuse and still Agamemnon disregarded the fact. Only now that men are being killed in earnest, does he try to apologize. We skipped seven books, but not once through any of those did Agamemnon try to apologize. And now that he is, he wants Achilles to admit that he is the better man? I would have refused as well, even for all of the riches in the world.
There is not much persuasion in this part of the book, as the only one talking is Phoenix. I will, however, do my best to capture his methods of urging.
The first instance of Phoenix’s persuasion would be on page 266, starting with line 529. Phoenix uses his own emotions to show how little he likes Achilles’ plan of leaving. He asks him incredulously if he can honestly be thinking of leaving. I think that this would appeal most to Achilles’ pride as Phoenix is a mentor of his and his distrust would effect Achilles the most.
The second instance would be when Phoenix, on page 268, starting with line 601, talks of how the even the gods change and can be won over with bribes. He says that the gods are flexible, but Achilles is not. This is, again, appealing to his emotions, as he is trying to tell him that if even the gods can be placated with bribes, so should Achilles.
I think that the last instance would be when Phoenix tells Achilles the story of the man, Meleager starting on page 269 with line 646. He uses this story of another man who sat out of battle to try and make Achilles realize why he should rejoin the fight. In the story Meleager doesn’t fight again until his wife—Cleopatra—begs him too, and then it is too late for him to claim the prizes other men offered in an attempt to bring him back. This appeals to emotions as well, trying to make Achilles realize that he had better accept the prizes now.
Goodbye.
The assignment of today is similar to that of yesterday. I am first to ask a question, I think that mine would be, how could Achilles honestly think that the gods will simply let him sail home? He knows that he is to die at Troy, so how can he think that he will be allowed to leave?
My opinion of Achilles, like my opinion of Agamemnon, did not change after I read book nine. Achilles said, rather specifically, that Agamemnon would come begging Achilles for help, and that he would refuse and still Agamemnon disregarded the fact. Only now that men are being killed in earnest, does he try to apologize. We skipped seven books, but not once through any of those did Agamemnon try to apologize. And now that he is, he wants Achilles to admit that he is the better man? I would have refused as well, even for all of the riches in the world.
There is not much persuasion in this part of the book, as the only one talking is Phoenix. I will, however, do my best to capture his methods of urging.
The first instance of Phoenix’s persuasion would be on page 266, starting with line 529. Phoenix uses his own emotions to show how little he likes Achilles’ plan of leaving. He asks him incredulously if he can honestly be thinking of leaving. I think that this would appeal most to Achilles’ pride as Phoenix is a mentor of his and his distrust would effect Achilles the most.
The second instance would be when Phoenix, on page 268, starting with line 601, talks of how the even the gods change and can be won over with bribes. He says that the gods are flexible, but Achilles is not. This is, again, appealing to his emotions, as he is trying to tell him that if even the gods can be placated with bribes, so should Achilles.
I think that the last instance would be when Phoenix tells Achilles the story of the man, Meleager starting on page 269 with line 646. He uses this story of another man who sat out of battle to try and make Achilles realize why he should rejoin the fight. In the story Meleager doesn’t fight again until his wife—Cleopatra—begs him too, and then it is too late for him to claim the prizes other men offered in an attempt to bring him back. This appeals to emotions as well, trying to make Achilles realize that he had better accept the prizes now.
Goodbye.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Iliad Assignment, Book Nine (pp. 251-266 lines 1-522)
Hello.
Iliad time again. We are jumping around a lot, not reading straight through, so we are now on book nine of the Iliad. We haven’t even finished book one.
First, I am to come up with a question, so here it is: If you were Achilles and you know that to fight would mean that you die, though gain everlasting honor, would you accept the spoils, effectively submitting to death, or would you remain sitting out? Three things to consider: first, if you accept, and die, you will only receive half of the fortune Agamemnon promises, considering half of it is only given under the condition that you live to make it back to Mycenae. Second, you will regain Briseis, your treasured prize, if you accept, though you will not be able to enjoy her for long, as you will soon die. Last, your honor is of the utmost importance to you and your society and you will lose honor (and arête) if you retreat.
This section sheds a lot of light on the character of Agamemnon. Before this I thought of him as a selfish, unthinking, quick-tempered coward. I have to say that few of those traits can now be crossed off that list.
Some will say that it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles such prizes. Yes, how very kind of him. But let me remind you all that Agamemnon stole Achilles’ prize and insulted him in front of the men. He did all of that knowingly, and now, only when times are desperate, does he want Achilles back. Now he comes slinking back to Achilles like a reprimanded child, asking for forgiveness. I, personally, don’t think that that forgiveness can be bought so easily. And, Achilles can have all of this if he will only submit and admit that Agamemnon is the greater man. A further blow to his honor. Also, he gives all of that to Achilles, but not a word of apology. So, though it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles everything that he did, my opinion of him has not changed.
As for persuasion, I think that the first instance of this is on page 252, starting with line 36. Diomedes stands up to the counsel of leaders and tries to persuade them not to abandon hope at Troy. I think that he appeals to emotions to plead his case, talking of the honor of the Greeks to keep them on the beaches of Troy.
Next, and though it is indirect, Agamemnon, tries to persuade Achilles, starting on page 255, line 147, to join the war again. He doesn’t do this by applying to his reason, his emotions or his ethics, but rather to the greed that Agamemnon believes Achilles to have. He is, essentially, bribing him. I suppose, that forced into a category, this would be appealing to emotions, as greed is, after all a powerful human emotion. This is a good example for that because Agamemnon is trying to make a case, trying to win Achilles over, but he fails, and as an outsider, it is easy to see what he did wrong (see above rant on Agamemnon).
Last, Odysseus pleads with Achilles to stay. He is a messenger of Agamemnon and does repeat what Agamemnon says, but he also asks Achilles to stay for the troops, appealing to his ethics. He says that Achilles should “take pity” (page 261, line 365) on the troops and somehow save them. I think that this plea, coming from Odysseus, Achilles’ friend, would be far more powerful than any of Agamemnon’s bribes. Agamemnon made a very wise move when he sent Odysseus to talk with Achilles; he does a very good job at relaying the message and giving one of his own.
I like the Iliad very much. I think that it is a wonderful book because off all of the human emotions that it contains. I am also simultaneously reading the Odyssey, which is wonderful as well.
Goodbye.
Iliad time again. We are jumping around a lot, not reading straight through, so we are now on book nine of the Iliad. We haven’t even finished book one.
First, I am to come up with a question, so here it is: If you were Achilles and you know that to fight would mean that you die, though gain everlasting honor, would you accept the spoils, effectively submitting to death, or would you remain sitting out? Three things to consider: first, if you accept, and die, you will only receive half of the fortune Agamemnon promises, considering half of it is only given under the condition that you live to make it back to Mycenae. Second, you will regain Briseis, your treasured prize, if you accept, though you will not be able to enjoy her for long, as you will soon die. Last, your honor is of the utmost importance to you and your society and you will lose honor (and arête) if you retreat.
This section sheds a lot of light on the character of Agamemnon. Before this I thought of him as a selfish, unthinking, quick-tempered coward. I have to say that few of those traits can now be crossed off that list.
Some will say that it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles such prizes. Yes, how very kind of him. But let me remind you all that Agamemnon stole Achilles’ prize and insulted him in front of the men. He did all of that knowingly, and now, only when times are desperate, does he want Achilles back. Now he comes slinking back to Achilles like a reprimanded child, asking for forgiveness. I, personally, don’t think that that forgiveness can be bought so easily. And, Achilles can have all of this if he will only submit and admit that Agamemnon is the greater man. A further blow to his honor. Also, he gives all of that to Achilles, but not a word of apology. So, though it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles everything that he did, my opinion of him has not changed.
As for persuasion, I think that the first instance of this is on page 252, starting with line 36. Diomedes stands up to the counsel of leaders and tries to persuade them not to abandon hope at Troy. I think that he appeals to emotions to plead his case, talking of the honor of the Greeks to keep them on the beaches of Troy.
Next, and though it is indirect, Agamemnon, tries to persuade Achilles, starting on page 255, line 147, to join the war again. He doesn’t do this by applying to his reason, his emotions or his ethics, but rather to the greed that Agamemnon believes Achilles to have. He is, essentially, bribing him. I suppose, that forced into a category, this would be appealing to emotions, as greed is, after all a powerful human emotion. This is a good example for that because Agamemnon is trying to make a case, trying to win Achilles over, but he fails, and as an outsider, it is easy to see what he did wrong (see above rant on Agamemnon).
Last, Odysseus pleads with Achilles to stay. He is a messenger of Agamemnon and does repeat what Agamemnon says, but he also asks Achilles to stay for the troops, appealing to his ethics. He says that Achilles should “take pity” (page 261, line 365) on the troops and somehow save them. I think that this plea, coming from Odysseus, Achilles’ friend, would be far more powerful than any of Agamemnon’s bribes. Agamemnon made a very wise move when he sent Odysseus to talk with Achilles; he does a very good job at relaying the message and giving one of his own.
I like the Iliad very much. I think that it is a wonderful book because off all of the human emotions that it contains. I am also simultaneously reading the Odyssey, which is wonderful as well.
Goodbye.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Arguments
Hello.
Arguments.
We’ve all been in a lot of them. They hurt us all. We all say things that we wish we hadn’t and we look back with regret.
I don’t really want to call one argument to mind. I hate them. I will, instead, talk of my arguments as a whole.
I would say that I fight the most with my father. For some reason, our personalities clash, though sometimes we are very like each other. It is hard to say what sets us off most of the time. It’s almost always petty. We’ll yell for a few minuets, I’ll retreat to my room, stamping my feet and dashing away angry tears. He’ll then come up the stairs softly and knock on my door lightly. I tell him to go away and he opens the door anyway. He asks if I’m still angry and if I hate him, at which point I give up and tell him that, yes, I am still angry, but no, I don’t hate him.
Arguments with my brother are common, but always petty. He’ll be doing something to annoy me, I do something in return, he retaliates, and I stand up from our worn kitchen table and walk into another room, telling him that sometimes, I cant stand him.
Arguments with my friends are even more rare. I can’t remember the last time I fought with most of them. I do, sometimes, get annoyed, as I seem to do with most people if I spend too much time with them, and say something sharp that I don’t mean. It has never gone beyond that.
And the most rare of all are arguments with my mother. I hate these more than all the rest combined. I suppose that’s because I love her the most. I have a tendency to cry a lot in arguments with her. I’m always so worried. What I would do if she stayed angry at me?
Arguments are painful.
Arguments.
We’ve all been in a lot of them. They hurt us all. We all say things that we wish we hadn’t and we look back with regret.
I don’t really want to call one argument to mind. I hate them. I will, instead, talk of my arguments as a whole.
I would say that I fight the most with my father. For some reason, our personalities clash, though sometimes we are very like each other. It is hard to say what sets us off most of the time. It’s almost always petty. We’ll yell for a few minuets, I’ll retreat to my room, stamping my feet and dashing away angry tears. He’ll then come up the stairs softly and knock on my door lightly. I tell him to go away and he opens the door anyway. He asks if I’m still angry and if I hate him, at which point I give up and tell him that, yes, I am still angry, but no, I don’t hate him.
Arguments with my brother are common, but always petty. He’ll be doing something to annoy me, I do something in return, he retaliates, and I stand up from our worn kitchen table and walk into another room, telling him that sometimes, I cant stand him.
Arguments with my friends are even more rare. I can’t remember the last time I fought with most of them. I do, sometimes, get annoyed, as I seem to do with most people if I spend too much time with them, and say something sharp that I don’t mean. It has never gone beyond that.
And the most rare of all are arguments with my mother. I hate these more than all the rest combined. I suppose that’s because I love her the most. I have a tendency to cry a lot in arguments with her. I’m always so worried. What I would do if she stayed angry at me?
Arguments are painful.
Book one Reflection
Hello.
I really liked this first book of the Iliad. I loved the language and all of the emotions that are shown, even such a short piece.
I have to say that I think that Achilles’ anger is entirely justified. In a society where your arête is everything, and your pride is your most important possession, it is not just a war prize that Agamemnon is stripping Achilles of. He is taking away is honor.
Then, of course, there is the matter of Agamemnon himself. Agamemnon is, essentially, a coward. He has never been into battle, he has never been on the front lines and yet he gets the best share of the loot, while warriors like Achilles, who fight hard all the time, get very little.
I cannot say that I think that Achilles was justified in calling his mother down form the heavens and pleading with her to talk to Zeus. No matter how much his honor was wounded, he has no right to wish that his own troops be killed. They are, after all, Greeks, such as himself.
I believe that even if Zeus were not to kill off troops, Agamemnon would soon realize that he could not win without Achilles.
Goodbye.
I really liked this first book of the Iliad. I loved the language and all of the emotions that are shown, even such a short piece.
I have to say that I think that Achilles’ anger is entirely justified. In a society where your arête is everything, and your pride is your most important possession, it is not just a war prize that Agamemnon is stripping Achilles of. He is taking away is honor.
Then, of course, there is the matter of Agamemnon himself. Agamemnon is, essentially, a coward. He has never been into battle, he has never been on the front lines and yet he gets the best share of the loot, while warriors like Achilles, who fight hard all the time, get very little.
I cannot say that I think that Achilles was justified in calling his mother down form the heavens and pleading with her to talk to Zeus. No matter how much his honor was wounded, he has no right to wish that his own troops be killed. They are, after all, Greeks, such as himself.
I believe that even if Zeus were not to kill off troops, Agamemnon would soon realize that he could not win without Achilles.
Goodbye.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
*Myth, Religon or Cult?*
Hello.
I would like to take just a brief moment to rant about the difference between a myth, a religion and a cult.
The official definition of a cult: the object of such devotion. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Sociology. A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
The official definition of a religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world.
The official definition of a myth: Any story that attempts to explain how the world was created or why the world is the way that it is. Myths are stories that are passed on from generation to generation and normally involve religion. Most myths were first spread by oral tradition and then were written down in some literary form. Many ancient literary works are, in fact, myths as myths appear in every ancient culture of the planet.
See a pattern? Well, that would be because they are all essentially the same.
What is a cult but a poorer, less powerful religion? What is a myth but a religion few believe in anymore?
The reason I bring this up is because we are reading “myths” in class and questioning the truth of them. No one (aside from us atheists) would ever question the truth of Christianity, but to me, that is a myth. The “myth” of the Greek gods was believed as a religion once, yet we question the “truth” of it. No one would ever say that the bible was unlikely to be true.
The other thing that has been really bothering me is a question on the California State Standards Test (the STAR test) last year. It was in the reading comprehension section. First, we had to read an article about “myths”, and then answer some questions. One of the questions was “Why did the Greeks invent their gods?” the answer they were looking for was “To explain natural happenings.” I was really angry about this question because the same question COULD be asked of Christianity, but no one ever would.
Just a few little things that anger me…
Goodbye.
I would like to take just a brief moment to rant about the difference between a myth, a religion and a cult.
The official definition of a cult: the object of such devotion. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Sociology. A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
The official definition of a religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world.
The official definition of a myth: Any story that attempts to explain how the world was created or why the world is the way that it is. Myths are stories that are passed on from generation to generation and normally involve religion. Most myths were first spread by oral tradition and then were written down in some literary form. Many ancient literary works are, in fact, myths as myths appear in every ancient culture of the planet.
See a pattern? Well, that would be because they are all essentially the same.
What is a cult but a poorer, less powerful religion? What is a myth but a religion few believe in anymore?
The reason I bring this up is because we are reading “myths” in class and questioning the truth of them. No one (aside from us atheists) would ever question the truth of Christianity, but to me, that is a myth. The “myth” of the Greek gods was believed as a religion once, yet we question the “truth” of it. No one would ever say that the bible was unlikely to be true.
The other thing that has been really bothering me is a question on the California State Standards Test (the STAR test) last year. It was in the reading comprehension section. First, we had to read an article about “myths”, and then answer some questions. One of the questions was “Why did the Greeks invent their gods?” the answer they were looking for was “To explain natural happenings.” I was really angry about this question because the same question COULD be asked of Christianity, but no one ever would.
Just a few little things that anger me…
Goodbye.
Monday, February 12, 2007
*Rage--Cause*
Rage is a sly monster.
It’s more potent than doubt, more powerful than grief. It doesn’t creep into your mind in the middle of the night, like jealousy, you’re not born with it with it, like happiness. No, rage steals over you quickly, sweeping through your blood. It doesn’t creep, it pounces.
Rage, in many ways, is more human than the others. Unfortunately, the evilest of emotions hides in human form. Like the wraith that sheds its skin to inhabit another, rage changes its shape, presenting itself in the figure most appeasing to its viewer.
And perhaps worst of all, rage is a monster that makes itself appealing. It sweeps over the soul, and then roosts there. It twists itself into a tempting snake, coiling around your heart, offering you a shining apple of false comfort. It consoles you while quietly fueling the burning fire it has started, perhaps without the knowledge of its seemingly innocent host.
Rage will consume you, devour your soul.
It’s more potent than doubt, more powerful than grief. It doesn’t creep into your mind in the middle of the night, like jealousy, you’re not born with it with it, like happiness. No, rage steals over you quickly, sweeping through your blood. It doesn’t creep, it pounces.
Rage, in many ways, is more human than the others. Unfortunately, the evilest of emotions hides in human form. Like the wraith that sheds its skin to inhabit another, rage changes its shape, presenting itself in the figure most appeasing to its viewer.
And perhaps worst of all, rage is a monster that makes itself appealing. It sweeps over the soul, and then roosts there. It twists itself into a tempting snake, coiling around your heart, offering you a shining apple of false comfort. It consoles you while quietly fueling the burning fire it has started, perhaps without the knowledge of its seemingly innocent host.
Rage will consume you, devour your soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)