Homer In Syria

Homeric wisdom does not age. The Iliad's understanding of the continuous nature of war, and the fragile place that the desire for peace has within it, is as meaningful now as it has ever been, in this era of wars that don't end, that don't have the result they were intended to have.
|
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The war has been going on for longer than anyone wants to remember. The fighting has swayed to and fro; there have been catastrophes on all sides; cities have been trashed; allies have broken away; some have refused to fight; and many precious men have been lost, almost always horribly, with no dignity or beauty in the deaths. The Iliad describes Syria 2014.

Nor, within the body of Homer's epic, is there any sense of an ending. Of course the audience knows, and Homer knows, that the war will end one day, and that the Greeks will exact from the city and its inhabitants the most brutal and horrifying of prices, but that is far off, and no hint of a Trojan Horse appears in the Iliad. That resolution-by-trickery appears only in the Odyssey, in retrospect, in tales told long after the war is over, with the combatants dispersed and little but grief remaining to remember the war by.

For now, though, the war, it seems, is going on forever. Its acts of violence are generating acts of violence, continuously, symmetrically. War is a trap in which human beings are condemned to toil, like slaves on a treadmill, summoning all those images of endless, repetitive pain to which the Greek mythic imagination is consistently drawn: Sisyphus and the boulder that will always slip out of his grasp and back to the bottom of the hill; Tantalus and the fruit that always lifts just beyond him as he reaches for it; Prometheus whose liver will be eaten for ever by the eagle than feeds on it by day, only for the liver to grow back at night; the Danaides spending eternity trying to fill a bath with water they must carry to it in sieves.

The Iliad does have an ending, a kind of resolution, or at least a wished-for resolution. The poem ends before Troy falls, but Homer orchestrates something subtler and richer than the hideousness of any military triumph. After Achilles kills Hector the Trojan prince, the whole of Troy goes into horrified despair and mourning. The women wail, the men cover themselves with dung scraped up from the streets. This moment of hopelessness is the pit of the poem. Achilles is threatening to eat Hector's body raw. It looks as if everything the city enshrines means nothing in the teeth of the Greeks' triumph. Priam, the king of Troy, resolves to go to their camp across the plain to find Achilles and beg him for the body of his son.

The old king slowly prepares and gathers carts full of the best that the city can offer, including beautiful cloths: robes, mantles, blankets, cloaks and tunics, as if wanting to drown Achilles in the woven. But that is the point. Priam is going to take the qualities of the city out into the plain. That has been the place where in book after book, death after death, the wrong thing has been done. Priam's journey is a kind of healing laid across that theatre of horror. He travels slowly, at night, with his mule carts: no heroic northern chariots here. He comes at last into the shelter of Achilles's camp, and without announcement the old king kneels down next to Achilles, clasps his knees and 'kisses his hands, the terrible man-slaughtering hands, the hands that had shed so much blood, the blood of his sons'. That old man's kiss is the moment of arrival. Achilles thinks of his own father in Greece, and comes to understand something beyond the world of violence and revenge he has so far inhabited. Both men give way to grief.

Priam wept freely
For man-killing Hector, throbbing, crouching
Before Achilles's feet as Achilles wept himself
Now for his father, now for Patroclus
And their sobbing rose and fell in the house.

Food is cooked for them, mutton souvlaki:

They reached down for the good things that lay at hand
And when they had put aside desire for food and drink
Priam gazed at Achilles marveling now how tall he was,
And how beautiful
And Achilles looked at the nobility of the old king
And listened to his words.

They gaze at each other in silence, and that exchange of admiring looks is the Iliad's triumph. Priam has brought the virtues of civility into Achilles's heart. The body of Hector will now be returned to his father and will be buried with dignity outside the city. In that way, Troy has won the war. Achilles has absorbed the beauty of Priam's wisdom, of his superhuman ability to admire the man who has killed his sons, and from the mutuality and courage of that wisdom, its blending of city and plain, a vision of the future might flower.

We know, as Homer's audience knew, that this is not the true ending. It is nothing but a moment. Achilles will soon be dead, Troy will soon be broken, the Trojan men will soon be slaughtered, Priam among them, horribly murdered by Achilles's own son, their women abused and enslaved. Only here, in poetry, in passing, a better world is momentarily seen.

Homeric wisdom does not age. The Iliad's understanding of the continuous nature of war, and the fragile place that the desire for peace has within it, is as meaningful now as it has ever been, in this era of wars that don't end, that don't have the result they were intended to have, that leave little but damage in their wake.

Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has recently described how, 'between airplane flights' in August 2012, she had a cup of coffee with Kofi Annan, who had just stepped down as the international community's special envoy on Syria. 'Speaking with deep sadness,' Mathews has written, 'this consummate international negotiator said he'd never worked harder on a problem with less to show for it.' Translated into the medium of the 21st century, those are Priam's words.

Adam Nicolson is the author of Why Homer Matters.

___________________
Also on The Huffington Post:

7 Brilliant Writers Who Were Overshadowed By A Contemporary
Anne Sexton (Sylvia Plath)(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath -- both "confessional" poets -- met in Boston in 1958 as members of Robert Lowell’s poetry class and instantly became friends. Sexton encouraged Plath to write from her experiences and from a more feminine perspective. Their first collections, both published in 1960, were critically acclaimed. Plath’s, however, was to be the only book of poems published in her lifetime. In September 1962, she separated from her husband, the poet Ted Hughes, and wrote at least 26 poems in a fierce burst of creativity. Five months later she put her head in a gas oven. Hughes’s publication of her final poems in Ariel (1965) precipitated the rise to fame that would eventually overshadow Sexton. Both women were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry, Plath posthumously. But though Sexton’s poems are still read and appreciated, Plath’s contentious relationship with Hughes and her dramatic death made her a phenomenon. Sexton said of Plath “We talked death with burned-up intensity, both of us drawn to it like moths to an electric light bulb, sucking on it.” After several more collections, which critics met with increasing indifference, Sexton, too, committed suicide. (credit:Ian Cook via Getty Images)
Ezra Pound (T.S. Eliot)(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
By 1914, expatriate American poet Ezra Pound was a prominent fixture in the burgeoning Modernist movement. Pound advanced the careers of many contemporaries, including James Joyce, Robert Frost and Ernest Hemingway, but perhaps none more than T.S. Eliot. He ensured the publication of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," and was so influential in shaping Eliot's masterpiece, The Wasteland, that Eliot dedicated it to him, calling Pound "the better craftsman." Pound's downfall was anti-Semitism--disillusioned by Britain's role in World War One, he moved to Italy, embracing Mussolini, supporting Hitler, and criticizing the United States. In 1945, he was arrested for treason but escaped a life sentence when he was declared insane, subsequently spending 12 years in a psychiatric hospital. Three years after Pound's arrest, Eliot was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. These days Eliot, not Pound, is regarded as the figurehead of Modernist poetry. At the end of his life, Pound admitted, "My worst mistake was the stupid suburban anti-Semitic prejudice, all along that spoiled everything." (credit:Hulton Archive via Getty Images)
Louis MacNeice (W. H. Auden)(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
Both born in 1907, Louis MacNeice and W. H. Auden met at Oxford University in 1926. In 1937, they published a joint book, Letters From Iceland, based on their travels there the previous year. Both men, though chiefly remembered as poets, wrote in several different genres and styles: MacNeice wrote a large number of plays for BBC radio, Auden was a prolific reviewer and essayist. By the 1950s, though, MacNeice’s heavy drinking began to affect his work; his later collections were poorly received. He died of pneumonia in 1963, followed by Auden 10 years later. Auden garnered far higher recognition thanks to a handful of works, most significantly “Funeral Blues.” Written originally as a satirical eulogy for a politician in the anti-capitalist play The Ascent of F6, the poem catapulted him into the realm of the Literary Greats when it was read in the 1994 film Four Weddings and a Funeral. A pamphlet of 10 Auden poems subsequently sold more than 275,000 copies. Auden and MacNeice’s centenary year, 2007, was marked by broadcast tributes and public readings for Auden -- but not MacNeice. (credit:Kurt Hutton via Getty Images)
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (William Wordsworth)(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
In 1798, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth launched the English Romantic Movement when they published their joint poetry volume, Lyrical Ballads. Wordsworth contributed more poems, but Coleridge’s "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" drew the most praise and attention. Unfortunately, Coleridge was emotionally unstable and unhappily married. He took to self-medicating with laudanum. Within 10 years of Lyrical Ballads’ publication, his opium addiction was out of hand. He separated from his wife in 1808, fell out with Wordsworth in 1810, lost part of his annuity in 1811. Finally, Coleridge put himself under the care of a doctor and remained creatively unproductive for the rest of his life. Coleridge is still remembered for "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and a handful of other poems, but Wordsworth built the lasting reputation. Appointed Poet Laureate nine years after Coleridge’s death, Wordsworth’s long poem to his dead friend, "The Prelude," is now hailed as a masterpiece.
Gore Vidal (Truman Capote)(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Gore Vidal and Truman Capote were born a year apart. Vidal’s third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), coincided with Capote’s debut Other Voices, Other Rooms. The City and the Pillar sparked a public scandal as the first novel to depict an openly gay protagonist as masculine and homosexuality as natural. Vidal claimed that as a result, The New York Times refused to review his next five books. Capote’s 1948 debut, also featuring a gay (albeit more effeminate) protagonist, became an instant hit, spending nine weeks on The New York Times bestseller list. So began a lifelong rivalry between the two, leading Tennessee Williams to observe: “You would think they were running neck-and-neck for some fabulous gold prize.” Vidal’s essays, novels, plays and screenplays never matched the level of recognition Capote achieved with Breakfast at Tiffany’s and In Cold Blood. Addiction to drink and drugs eventually silenced Capote’s writing talent. Though he maintained his celebrity through talk show appearances, he never finished another book, and died of liver cancer in 1984. Vidal lived for another 28 productive years without achieving the literary recognition of his rival. (credit:ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Ford Madox Ford (Joseph Conrad)(06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Ford Madox Ford published his first novel in 1892 when he was just 20. Three years later, 38-year-old Joseph Conrad published his debut. Conrad went on to publish four more novels by 1900, including Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim, while Ford would publish more than two dozen books before achieving critical success with The Good Soldier (1915). He was constantly outgunned by his friend despite the fact English was Conrad’s third language. "I helped Joseph Conrad, I helped Hemingway,” Ford told George Seldes. “I helped a dozen, a score of writers, and many of them have beaten me. I'm now an old man and I'll die without making a name like Hemingway." Seldes observed, "At this climax Ford began to sob. Then he began to cry." (credit:E. O. Hoppe via Getty Images)
Dorothy Richardson (Virginia Woolf)(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
In 1915, Gerald Duckworth, Woolf’s step-brother, published the first novels of both Dorothy Richardson and Virginia Woolf. Richardson’s debut, Pointed Roofs, was the first stream-of-consciousness novel in English, ahead of both Joyce’s Ulysses and Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway. Richardson bent the rules of punctuation and sentence length to create what has been called a “feminine prose.” Paying tribute to Richardson’s influence, Woolf said, “She has invented a sentence we might call the psychological sentence of the feminine gender." But whereas Woolf’s novels entered both the popular and critical canon and are still read today, those of Dorothy Richardson languish in obscurity. The reason? One critic claims that Richardson might have been “the Gertrude Stein of the English novel if she had been more self-promoting and more affluent." Born into wealth, Woolf was at the center of the influential Bloomsbury group and ran her own publishing house. By contrast, Richardson left London to live in Cornwall early in her career. Without literary friends to champion her long unstructured style and difficult prose, she now has few fans outside academia.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost