The Collective

Based on my analysis, the snake that bit Philoctetes is a representation of isolation and suffering. Philoctetes first encountered it by doing something he should not have been doing and the snake’s bite was a constant source of agony for him. The snake wound also shows Philoctetes’ fractured relationship with society. Once he was bitten by the sake, he was cast out of his community and sent to live on the island in isolation. The wound never heals, the smell that comes from it and the groans of suffering of Philoctetes are the reasons Odysseus gives for making him an outcast. The wound grew worse and because he was alone on the island, he had to do all he can to survive and remain alive. The pain got so intense for Philoctetes that he asks for his foot to be chopped off. No one was able to help Philoctetes because he was isolated from everyone else. Not only the wound was getting worse but he had to use all his energy to remain alive.

When Philoctetes and Neoptolemus are alone together, Philoctetes goes absolutely delirious with pain. Or actually, he finally lets out the intensity of his constant unbearable reality that Neoptolemus hasn’t quite seen yet. He asks for his foot to be chopped off, and even goes so far as to say not to spare his life! Neoptolemus asks if Philoctetes wants him to hold him, but Philoctetes says no, but offers up his bow. Then the contemplation of Neoptolemus to take the bow or not, followed by the realization that they need Philoctetes as well as the bow… This whole scene is playing almost farcical in my head. I imagine Neoptolemus giving takes out to the audience, sharing his temptations to kill him, or steal his bow and run off. But I feel that the story must not be meant to come across this way, but I just can’t wrap my head around the style. It feels very over the top. 

A big emphasis of the Philoctetes is on gender roles, and specifically how they are not always followed. Unlike Helen in the Iliad, who seemingly had no control over her destiny, and just went along with whatever happened, Clytemnestra took the exact opposite route. From as early as the beginning of the story, where she seemed to have more knowledge of current events than the Chorus, to the end of the story, where she took her destiny into her own hands, and avenged the death of her daughter, it looked like Clytemnestra was able to move away from the traditional "role" of a woman, which is typically someone that goes along with whatever men do and don't have any control themselves, and show that the exact opposite is possible, even though the outcome for her was deadly. Regardless of her death, she showed that women are still able to do things such as killing for retribution, which is something typically only done by men.

In Book 23 Achilles is still crying that Patroclus died. Achilles starts to eat again but is waiting to bury Patroclus.When Achilles went to sleep he had a dream of his dead companions telling him to hold a funeral for them so he holds a funeral for Patroclus and his companions. In Book 24 Achilles cried over Hector. Apollo persuades Zeus to let Achilles bury the body. As the Trojans are burying Hector body everyone is crying and sad. I think the aftermath was known to happen when there is war there will always be a winner and a loser. People will die it’s inevitable.

The ending of the Iliad didn’t not feel like the ending of the novel to me. I was left confused and wondering what exactly will happen to Achilles now. Was anyone else left confused and incomplete? I still strongly dislike  that Homer did not put Achilles death. I don’t know, I felt like Homer designed to books in a way that Hektor ended the story. It is werid it is as though Hektor really did end the war just like he really did end the books. Literally the last sentence it, “Such was their burial of Hektor, breaker of horses”(Book24, line 804). I took this statement as Hector’s death will forever be grieved upon. Because Hektor was loved by all of the Trojan city he will forever be memorable because he died in honor and for his people. I do not want to say that I was happy with every decision that Hector made because some made no sense to me. But the majority of his decisions had reasoning behind them and to me his character was true.  

Beginning in Book XXII and extending to Book XXIV, Achilles again moves from understandable anger, this time over the death of Patroklos, to uncontrollable and all-consuming rage in his treatment of the body of Hektor. These last three books follow the same structural pattern in Achilles' rage that the first twenty books did. Achilles anger at Agamemnon is replaced with anger at Hektor. Likewise, just as Achilles reached a reconciliation with Agamemnon, so will he reconcile with Hektor's father, Priam. Achilles had begun the desecration of Hektor's corpse at the end of Book XXII, and he continues it, both explicitly and implicitly, in Book XXIII. Achilles' rage cannot be abated, and the reader can no longer feel sympathy for the Achaian warrior. Homer created a largely sympathetic and understandable character in Hektor. Hektor may have gloried over the dead Patroklos, but he did not mutilate the body; so now, Achilles' actions go beyond the bounds of acceptabilit...

Many people have noted connections between the last Book and the first because both involve a father seeking the return of a child. Agamemnon's rejection of Chryses in Book I leads to all of the events of the  Iliad . Achilles' kindness to Priam in Book XXIV ends the warrior's wrath and brings the work full circle — the war situation is not essentially different from the way it was at the start. With Hektor's burial accomplished and Achilles' death imminent, the great antagonists of the  Iliad  have been dealt with. The events here are the final resolution of the dramatic story of the wrath, or the anger, of Achilles and its aftermath. Until now, Achilles has undergone no real change of heart and has learned no moral lesson from his experiences. His meeting with Hektor's father, Priam, however, is a crucial stage in his moral development. In their conversation, Achilles reveals the full depth of his affection for Patroklos and demonstrates his ability to unde...

From the very beginning of the story, it is made clear that the Chorus is not in a position of total control, seeing as how they are unaware of the bonfire system that is in place. Clytemnestra had to explain to the Chorus exactly how she knew that Troy was taken, after the confusion of the Chorus was made clear. It is interesting that the group of people who are seen as advisers are unaware of the notification system in place. You would thing the advisers of the current ruler would be more up to date about things like this, but I think this is an early indication of the weak state of the Chorus.

An interesting part on the reading was when Clytemnestra had her  rant about the state of being of the country and herself. She speaks on as though she has to prove something or there is some sort of denial or question in how genuine she is to her faith. She almost speaks in a tone as tho, there should not be any wandering or question of such matters. I also find it interesting how the reference of Zeus has a bit of a diffrent vibe in this telling of a story. The divine interaction in the beginning is  not as pronounced as it was in the Iliad. When the Gods are referenced that fact that there perspective are not reflected or the reader is given a first hand account makes the pleas more genuine and relate able.

The second time Clytemnestra enters the play she seems to be speaking vehemently of her devotion to Agamemnon these years he’s been away at war. She says that people mocked and scorned her saying to her that just because there are lights in the distance it doesn’t mean that Troy has fallen. Women were thought silly to have high hopes. She goes on further in her monologue (page 65) to claim that no one has touched her all these years. Saying “No thought of ease nor joy from other men hath touched my soul, nor shall touch, until bronze be dyed like wool.” I wonder if this is referencing the bronze as the war weapons, and when they might turn useless- as in the end of the war, or if it’s referencing an impossibility (bronze into wool), in which she’s claiming her unfaithfulness would be. The lady doth protest too much, methinks… The Leader in this play has the same hunch because when she leaves he says of her message “Tis of fair seeming, and craves a clear interpreter.” 

In book 22 hector is the last trojan left alive. Hector plan was to camp outside their gates before but is now ashamed to retreat. He try to negotiate with Achilles but he finds out how pointless it is and runs away. Zeus thinks about saving Hector but instead he puts Hector and Achilles on a golden scale and Hector sinks to the bottom this shows Hector fate is to die. When Hector and Achilles fight Hector realizes that the gods have betray him. Hector lost the fight and wants to be buried with all the other trojans but Achilles refuses. Hector’s wife see Hector dies and cries. This is what people can do in fiction or real life with different perspective on life.

After long tiring fighting, both sides do their rituals and put their fallen to rest. After all this brutal slaughter, it almost feels surreal for them to do this. It almost feels like they could come together to do this as friends and it would be totally normal. This really highlights just how vastly different war is back in the ancient times, and the attitude towards it. This is all of course ignoring the body of Hector, which is being dragged around like a sack by Achilles. The malice he has for his friend's murderer is quite salient here, and it truly shows us just how deep the bond the two of them had. Hopefully this will still be explored further despite it's end in the mortal plane.

In Book 22 Hektor's time has come which was inevitable regardless of what armor he wore , whichever gods was helping him he was destined to die. It ended up being karma that he wore Patrocles armor because that is what helped Achilles take him down. However , even if he wasn't wearing that armor i still feel like he was destined to die at Achilles hand out of everyone.

It seems as if the main focus of the two books was on burials and the glory associated with a fallen warrior's body. At this point, it's very clear just how much both sides of the war value glory, whether it be when they're living or dead. This same sentiment was shown a few books ago, when the two sides halted their fighting in order to properly send off the bodies of the dead. As shown by Achilles massively disrespecting Hektor's body and the anger caused by it, as well as Patroklos begging Achilles to send him off, the bodies of the dead are extremely important. It was interesting to see that despite already having killed Hektor, Achilles took the time to parade his body around, as if he was trying to disrespect him even in death. This shows that the warriors have found ways to both preserve and to disrespect their enemies and friends, through life and death.

At the end of Book 24, King Priam with the guidance of Hermes reaches Achilles' tent, and he gives a beautiful speech to Achilles, begging him to get his son's body back. (Lines 486 - 570) "I put my lips to the hands of the man who has killed my children."  It was emotional to see Priam face the man who slaughtered all his children and his people and knee in front of him, implore to have his son back. I am glad that Achilles gives him the body, and respects the mourning of the Trojans. I think it was an understandable conclusion between Achilles and Hektor's rivalry, but I finished the book with a feeling that it was missing something, like Achilles death, or the end of the war, and even the Trojan Horse.

Book 22 in The Iliad mainly revolves around Hektor and his upcoming fight with Achilleus. There was plenty of foreshadowing in Hektor's death. His mother insists that he flees, yet his pride prevents him from doing so. After a back-and-forth brawl between the two, Achilleus ends up defeating Hektor. What surprised me the most about this battle was the amount of disrespect Achilleus showed towards Hektor. On lines 261-263, Achilleus says "Hektor, argue me no agreements. I cannot forgive you. As there are no trustworthy oaths between men and lions, nor wolves and lambs have spirit that can be brought to agreement". After landing a fatal blow to Hektor, on lines 345-354, Achilleus makes multiple cruel statements about what will happen to Hektor after he is dead, including "I wish only that my spirit and fury would drive me to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that you have done to me". I can somewhat see why Achilleus is angry at Hektor, due to the ...

I think Achille's and Patroculs's relation is shown to be really strong. When Achaen troops return to the camp and Achille's grief for Patroclus's death is massive and he shows a lot of sense of loss. I think he feels the loss of both a true comrade in his army and a close companion. I feel the appearance of Patroclus's ghost shows a unique bond between Achilles and Patroclus. I think  it shows that their connection is so strong that he returns from the dread to speak to him.For example, their joint burial shows their bond. Also, Achille's sacrifice, including 12 Trojans is an effort to  show how much pain and sorrow he feels. Moreover, I think the games mark the end of the period of grieving for Patroclus.

I found it strange that at such a crucial point in this seemingly never-ending war, the Achaians took time out to do a series of contests. It was said that the point of this was to honor the death of Patroklos. But they had just done a huge firing burning burial ritual. Games and prizes seem trivial at this point. But perhaps this series of gauntlets is needed now to raise their spirits and energy to ready them for the final war acts to come. Though I would think that it is just needlessly taking energy out of them. Another thing that struck me curious is when Epios seems to be taking the boxing challenge a little too far saying “I will smash his skin apart and break his bones on each other.” (line 673) “So he spoke and all of them stayed stricken to silence.” (line 676) And that is exactly how I felt at that point in my reading. 

Book 22 illustrates the death of Hektor. The death of Hektor is not really surprising to me because we all saw it coming. Even Hektor’s wife saw his death coming because she knows that if he continue on in the battle, he is bound to die. However, Hektor claims that if he does die then it is because of fate that he is dying and that is exactly what happened. Zeus did considered saving Hektor but Athena persuades him that the mortal’s time has come. Achilles did have a little advantage because Hektor was wearing the armour that he stole from Patroclus’s dead body so Achilles know what the armor’s weak points are. It was sad to see Hektor die because he sacrificed his family to fight for his people and Troy. Hektor is leaving behind his family and his son is going to be fatherless and would not have a father figure there to protect him.

In Book 22, I already suspected the death of Hector. I was not only sad but I also was surprised. I was sad because in a way I felt like Hector had won glory because he was fighting for his family, his people and Troy. Just before Hector is knows he is going to die but sort of reflects to see if he can change his destiny. Hector states, “I feel shame before the Trojans and the Trojan women with trailing robes, that someone who is less of a man than I will say of me: ‘Hektor believed in his own strength and ruined his people.’ Thus they will speak; and as for me, it would be much better at that time, to go against Achilleus, and slay him, and come back, or else be killed by him in glory in front of the city” (line 105- 110). Hector is almost doubting that he can kill Achilles and therefore he wishes to change his destiny. To be killed in front of your people is much better because I believe Homer is emphasizing that it would bring glory to you honor. It would show a ...