Hi Nick,
I took the bait and read Talbott's 'Heroes of the Iliad'. It really bemuses me as to how anyone,
whether Saturn theorist or academic, can read this sort of thing and fail to see the depth.
Reducing a book such as the Iliad to a trivial dichotomy of it is, it isn't history; or it is, it isn't astronomical is... I can't think of a word which describes my feelings.
DT wrote:
Here was my conclusion: there is no local history whatsoever
in the poet's narrative! The entire story of the "Trojan War"
is a localization of a much more ancient memory - the
earthshaking celestial conflagration called the "wars of the gods".
The historicity of the Iliad is similar to the historicity of 'The Sands of Iwo Jima' or a Victorian book of tale of derring-do from the Raj. It's one-part history and two-parts propaganda. That's for the unthinking masses. It is saying look here is what our forefathers achieved, if our generation is called upon then that is the standard we have to at least match. A few centuries later the Greeks did just that at Salamis, Platea and Thermopylae.
If one actually reads the book then it is apparent that the ten-year Trojan War consisted of a
campaign in which the Greeks steadily chewed their way through Trojan colonies and trading-posts etc, culminating in the establishment of a beach-head on the Trojan mainland. The weapons and tactics used in the book are typical of those employed in the period in which it is set. My guess would be that the Greek newcomers were trying to muscle in on the lucrative sea-going trade in the Eastern Mediterranean.
I'm not going to enter into a critique of DT's piece though I could if I wished (I'm still
waiting for any kind of response to my piece on God Star). Instead I'll just give my take on the book.
The Iliad is Greek philosophy. It's content is in no way different from, e.g. Plato's works. The
three pillars of Greek philosophy are: Metaphysics - how the Cosmos works and Man's place in it; Ethics - the question of conduct; Politics - the question of governance. The three are
inextricably linked. Personal conduct must reflect the laws of the Cosmos (which means order); the laws of the polis must also reflect the Cosmos. To the Greeks the individual was in the middle, he was always subject to cosmic law (being part and parcel of the Cosmos this is
unavoidable) but he was only subject to the law of the polis as long as it did not contravene or
contradict Cosmic law or his own standards. To the Romans the state was king, everything was dictated by the needs of the state. This is one reason why it is not a good idea to attempt direct correlations between Greek and Roman mythological tales. The stories might contain the same characters but they might not necessarily contain the same message.
The Iliad is also a master-class in psychology which makes it also an alchemical book. It is
about making decisions (choices) and exercising Will.
As Socrates says in Plato's Cratylus, one should always begin with the gods so here goes.
To intelligent Greeks, the 'gods' are not real 'people', they are natural forces if you will,
they are various aspects of the workings of the universe. They are still forms of consciousness as are we, it's just that they are fulfilling a role different to ours. The Olympians are as subject to a higher Cosmic Law. Different gods and goddesses occupy different niches. And because the Cosmos works on the same principles from top to bottom (macro to micro; as above, so below etc) a particular god or goddess can represent different, though related, things.
The gods feature in the Iliad in two ways: first where they are contemporaneous with the events, and, second where various tales about them are related throughout the book. If there is any astronomical knowledge in such tales it is in the second catagory.
The first catagory of gods being involved in the fighting etc is there purely for the masses. The underlying message of Homer is that the gods do not control human destiny - they do not make an individual do this or that. This message comes across through countless incidents in the book involving the various Warriors Heroes.
A Warrior in this context is not just some guy who likes fighting. A Warrior fights himself. He
has set himself a set of standrds and fights to maintain them; it is about self-discipline. This
can be seen in various other cultures. The famous scence between Arjuna and Krishna in the
Mahabarata; Toltec writings; the Samurai and the code of Bushido etc. Again, this is reflected in the incidents involving the various personalities, both Greek and Trojan.
A Hero in the Greek literature is one who has made a certain degree of progreess towards
enlightement. Perseus, Theseus etc are not Heroes until they have completed the quest. You don't have a quest and so send for a Hero. This is the alchemical part (Alchemy - the art of
transformation).
All of the above should fit in with my outlining of the Ancient Wisdom which I posted previously.
So let's now have a look at some specific incidents from the Iliad. First of all, Fitton, at
least as quoted by DT states a factual inaccuracy. Athene does not fight Artemis. Artemis fought and lost to Hera not Athene.
Athene is human Mind, that's why she is born out of Zeus's head. Zeus is universal mind (universe here being everything under the circle of fixed stars). She defeats Ares twice. Ares here represents an emotion or passion as the Greeks had it (violence, aggression etc, etc). In one of my favourite passages, where Athene fights with Ares the second time, she floors him with a rock.
As he is lay on the floor stunned, Aphrodite, his former lover, turns up to protect him. Athene
punches her in her 'soft breast' and she falls to the ground too. Ares and Aphrodite are here the equivalent of the Eris (strife) and Aphrodite in the philosophy of Empedocles. They represent two extremes - Athene takes the middle path (not necessarily the dead centre). It's all about balance in the sense of harmony rather than equilibrium. She conquers them but she does not kill them because they represent eternal verities (nothing in the universe 'dies' per se). Incidentally, I would be interested to know how the comparative mthod interprets this incident given that Athene and Aphrodite are supposed to be one and the same thing. Perhaps Homer got it wrong?
Another great passage (they are all great) features Ajax Telemon and Odysseus. In order to slow down the Greeks, Zeus has released Eris onto the battlefield. Greek morale breaks and they run. Even Ajax and Odysseus are running. Ajax decides within himself that enough is enough - he didn't come all this way to run away from Trojans. He decides to stand and asks Odysseus will he stand with him. Odysseus agrees and the two of them turn at bay. Ajax gets hit in the foot by an arrow from Paris so Odysseus bundles him onto a chariot and sends him back to the Greek camp for first-aid. This leaves Odysseus on his own facing a goodly part of the Trojan forces. Odysseus then has a little dialogue with himself, in his mind as Homer puts it. He says 'I am on my own and vastly outnumbered, I could retreat it wouldn't be improper'. The other voice says no. He says 'everyone else has run away, I could run too, nobody could blame me'. The other voice says no. He says 'but this is the will of Zeus, he has released Eris'. The other voice then says 'the will of Zeus? That is a poor excuse'. That is a remarkable statement in a remarkable passage. I recommend checking it out. First we have emotion (fear) - right side of the brain; then we have logic - left side of brain. Then mind and will.
Greek versus Trojan. The Greeks in the Iliad make the correct decisions and the Trojans are used to illustrate the making of the wrong decision. Some examples.
The whole plot revolves around a decision which Achilles has to make. Before he makes that final decision we see him make decisions based on emotion and decisions based on logic. In the confrontation with Agamemnon over Briseis at the start of the book, Achilles, using logic, lays out his case for possession of Briseis. (The fact that it is a women is irrelevant). Achilles
argues from a point of law, i.e. the rules over dividing up the spoils. He is correct in his
stance here and has the moral high-ground. (Agamemnon as here crossed the line from ruler by assent to tyrant). Achilles, however, goes too far and his pride gets the better of him and he takes the hump and withdraws from the conflict. He is wrong here because he has obligations to the other Greeks - and they suffer for his hubris.
Menelaus is the younger son of a king. He has all the privileges which go with his rank and less of the obligations than does the heir apparent. He has a repution for being headstrong and generally immature. Menelaus comes good at the death of Patroclus. After Hector has stripped off the armour from the body and retired, other Trojans start to move for the body (in order to ransom it). Menelaus spots them and makes the decision to stop them or die trying. There is no love lost between Menelaus and Achilles but this is not a factor in Melelaus' decision. He respected Patroclus. He makes the stand and saves the body. The fact that Menelaus has changed is confirmed with an incident in the chariot race at the funeral games for Patroclus.
The Trojans go from good to bad. DT is correct in stating that Paris was a warrior in his earlier days. Where Paris goes wrong is at the so-called Judgement of Paris. His three choices: Aphrodite (representing physical desire (not just of women - any possession), Athene (his mind - enlightenment), Hera (Law - she's the wife of Zeus). Same trichotomy - emotion, reason, logic.
Law here means someone elses laws, i.e. you obey because it it the law - whatever the law. Paris chooses Aphrodite and becomes the last of the red-hot lovers. If he had chosen Hera he would have been on the slippery slope to being a lawyer. He runs away from a dual with Menelaus. Paris is also the younger prince.
Hector at the beginning of the book is the ideal heir, son, husband, father, warrior, leader etc. He, however, begins to believe his own publicity. He starts to believe that he is favoured by the gods and can rely on them to back him up. He stops relying on himself.
There are many more examples throughout the book.
Gods versus gods. Originally the gods agree not to become involved in the fighting. As things
start to go badly for the Greeks Poseidon sets off to help them but Zeus orders him back. Zeus and Poseidon have a confrontation in which threatens Poseidon with violence if he disobeys. Poseidon backs down but accuses Zeus of tyranny, i.e. of making might right. This is a direct parallel to the Agamemnon and Achillles arguement only different. Zeus is actually obeyng a higher law her though he doesn't tell the other gods. This is correct but the way he goes about it is wrong.
Near the end of the book, once Achilles has made his decision, Zeus allows the other gods to take sides in the battle. Poseidon and Apollo square up but Apollo backs down straight away. Apollo's twin sister Artemis then starts mouthing off at him for not even trying to fight Poseidon. Hera grabs Artemis' bow from her, grabs her hands and then gives her a sound thrashing with the bow. Artemis runs off crying to her father Zeus.
Apollo represents logic so he doesn't start a fight he cannot win. Artemis is passion (Nature -
red in tooth and claw, wild untamed Nature etc). The moral of this incident is twofold (at
least). First even Nature has to obey laws. Second, the younger generation is entitled to push
the rules of the older generation but outright revolt is not on.
DT makes the comment that the various wariors involved are virtually interchangeable. Yes they are, because they are all following the same warrior code.
I could go on and on, this is one very clever book.
For me she much more represents power to rule. She could have saved Troja.
