Conversations with Students VI: The Deaths of Heroes

The main text discussed during this most recent seminar was Book XVI of Homer’s Iliad. Three major events occur during this episode: (1) Achilleus allows Patroklos to don his armor and go out into the fighting looking as he would; (2) Patroklos kills Sarpedon, son of Zeus and King of Lykia, and (3) Apollo, Euphorbos, and Hektor all take part in the killing of Patroklos.

This might be a useful point, as well, to briefly mention the purpose of this “Great Books” with high school student project that is here being recorded and is ongoing in the classroom. The point is that when a student asks me, “why do we read these books?” for me to be able to answer. “Well, in this transitory time when all around you changes–media, houses, people, language, all that you believe makes you the person you are in the world you live in–these books and the ideas within them will still remain. And though how they are perceived and bound and packaged will of course always change, what is within them serves less to differentiate us, as people, from each other, and more to connect each generation to those which came before it in solidarity, though never uniformity.” That brief waxing philosopho-poetic complete, let us move on to the seminar and the questions considered therein.

1) Fate and its relationship to the deaths of Sarpedon and Patroklos (and soon Hektor and Achilleus).

2) Aristotle’s four causes and the etiology of Patroklos’ death–who, really, are we to blame for this? An immortal? Zeus or Apollo? Or one of the men who directly killed Patroklos: Euphorbos or Hektor? Or one of the men indirectly responsible: Achilleus or Nestor, or even Patroklos himself?

3) In allowing Sarpedon to die, was Zeus valuing his role as king over his role as father? Or truly was he valuing his promise to Thetis over any other responsibility? Was he truly persuaded by Hera’s comment that the gods would resent him that action as the majority of them (sans Apollo) were still restricted from interfering on the battlefield? That said, as ruler of the gods, is Zeus then less subject to the laws he upholds or moreso? A strange and perturbing question.

A theme today will be applying Aristotle’s four causes to the deaths of Patroklos and to Sarpedon because that may be a useful way to determine the precise roles which each person, god, and intangible fate plays in the end of each. A brief explanation of Aristotle’s causes comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“In Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2, Aristotle offers his general account of the four causes. This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires an explanation, including artistic production and human action. Here Aristotle recognizes four types of things that can be given in answer to a why-question:

  • The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
  • The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
  • The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
  • The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.” (

The reason we delve into Aristotle here and this brief explanation of his causes is because really the deaths of Sarpedon and Patroklos are that complex. First and foremost there is a prophecy in Book 15 that both will die in a grand sweep of formal causality in the service of Zeus keeping his promise to Thetis. He speaks the following prophecy to Hera:

“Let [Apollo] drive strengthless panic into the Achaians, and turn them back once more; let them be driven in flight and tumble back on the benched ships of Achilleus, Peleus’ son. And he shall rouse up Patroklos his companion. And glorious Hektor shall cut down Patroklos with the spear before Ilion, after he has killed many others of the young men, and among them my own son, shining Sarpedon. In anger for him brilliant Achilleus shall then kill Hektor. And from then on I would make the fighting surge back from the vessels always and continuously, until the Achaians capture headlong Ilion through the designs of Athene.” (15.61-71)

So, we will consider the place of fate within Aristotle’s concept of the four causes. Just as Patroklos is clearly the efficient cause of the death of Sarpedon and his spear the material cause. So, is it clear that the final cause is in order to be part of a succession of events which lead to inevitable return of Achilleus to the battle and the fall of Troy. The formal cause might be “the account” of the death of each of the men, whatever that means. The collateral damage, as it were, of this are the lives of Sarpedon, Patroklos, Hektor, and Achilleus, as well as the countless men whom each of them kill. All this though goes to show us that within Aristotle’s framework there are several different factors which led to the death of each of these men–the material cause which for both was a spear (16.480-481; 16.816-820), the efficient cause which was in the case of both men was another man using the spear against him, and the final cause which was Zeus’ plan to allow Troy to fall from all the way back in Book IV (4.30-69). Since Sarpedon’s death was foretold but also caused by Patroklos alone, let us consider the example of Patroklos, as it offers far more complexity than Sarpedon’s death.

First and foremost, we know from above that Patroklos is doomed to die by the hand of Hektor due to the prophecy and will of Zeus. Secondly, we know that Nestor is the one who even suggested that Patroklos take the battlefield wearing Achilleus’ armor in the first place (would him giving that idea make him also an efficient cause?) (11.790-803). Thirdly, we know that Achilleus accepts Patroklos’ request but himself refuses to return to the fighting because he still bears a tremendous grudge towards Agamemnon. That said, he does warn Patroklos to return to his tent after driving the Trojans back from the ships for fear some god might crush him (or that he might dishonor Achilleus). (16.48-100). Fourthly, there is the fact that Patroklos himself gets caught up in the heat of the battle and does not return as Achilleus requested that he do, but the reason for this is itself ambiguous: “But Patroklos, with a shout to Automedon and his horses, went after Trojans and Lykians in a huge blind fury. Besotted: had he only kept the command of Peleiades he might have got clear away from the evil spirit of black death. But always the mind of Zeus is a stronger thing than a man’s mind.” (16.684-688) So, whether Zeus or Patroklos’ own battle-fury is cause of his death in this case is subject to question. Then of course, fifthly, there are the two men and one god who strike him: (1) Apollo knocks off his corselet, shield, helmet, and splits his spear and mazes his wits at 16.788-807, and then Euphorbos strikes him with a spear in his back (16.812-814), and Hektor, his “third slayer” strikes him in the midriff 16.821-822. So, with these five causes laid out, who is it exactly that is responsible for the death of Patroklos? Do Aristotle’s causes ultimately help to determine who is most responsible? Zeus seems to have the final cause covered, but it is unclear whether Patroklos’ own motivations, Nestor’s prodding words, or simply the killing throws of Euphorbos and Hektor are the efficient causes of Patroklos’ death. And what chance had he, really, to stand up to Apollo? And could he have really avoided being crushed by Apollo had he gone back to the ships, or was he doomed to be “besotted” by the will of Zeus, who is too strong?

Though question three, about Zeus’ role as a father is a fair one for the students, beyond Hera’s argument that the gods will resent Zeus, Athene in Book 15 gives a response to Ares who wishes to avenge his son Askalaphos very much like Glaukos’ speech to Diomedes in Book VI which seems to satisfy why a god must allow his mortal son to die: “Therefore I ask of you to give up your anger for your son. By now some other, better of his strength and hands than your son was, has been killed, or will soon be killed; and it is a hard thing to rescue all the generation and seed of all mortals.” (15.138-141) Such a fact must be accepted by the gods, regardless their relationship and love of their children who are mortal. Those are who mortal are doomed to die, regardless their gifts or lineage, just as the commoners–such is a recurrent and ever prevalent theme in Homer’s Iliad, the common lot of man.

Conversations with Students V: Subterfuge, Cunning, and Power in Homer’s Gods

This time around, we covered a long stretch of readings: Books 11-15 and the first 100 lines of Book 16. In years past, I have skipped straight from Book 11 to 16 because the transition is so seamless. But this time around, I wanted the students to see , Poseidon’s direct contravention of Zeus’ order for all gods to remain off the battlefield (13.10-38), Agamemnon’s second attempt to flee (14.74-81), the seduction and deception of Zeus (14.160-360), and Poseidon’s near fight with his brother, equal in rank, but not in power (15. 167-235), and of course the fateful request of Patroklos to Achilleus for his armor and return to the battle at the head of Myrmidons (16.20-100).

A major theme which shows up again and again in Homer’s Iliad is power and its manifold expressions–and also the intricacies connected to differences in power and rank. For instance, in Book I, one of the governing reasons for the conflict between Achilleus and Agamemnon in the first place is that Agamemnon exceeds Achilleus in rank, but Achilleus is “far stronger” than is Agamemnon (1.130-245), In similar but distinctly different fashion, we observe the machinations of both Hera and Poseidon, in defiance of Zeus, during Books 13 and 14. Both may claim to be equal to Zeus in terms of birth and in fact Poseidon in his response to Iris suggests that either he or Hades could easily be king over the sky as Zeus is had the lots been cast in their favor. The difference, however, seems to be that equal as Hera and Poseidon may be to Zeus in rank and as siblings, they have not his brutal power. Even Poseidon is cowed by Zeus’ might (15.205-215). This difference in power leads to another expression of power, particularly feminine, by Hera.

Hera observes her brother Poseidon enter the Trojan battlefield against the orders given by Zeus (from 8.1-28) at 13.10-28. Knowing that if her brother and husband finds out about this that he will be angry and immediately seek to stop Poseidon from helping the Achaian side, Hera seeks a way to keep Zeus’ attentions divided. Her solution, since she can hardly force Zeus, is to use the tools at her disposal: deception and male weakness for female flesh–which she actually uses on two gods. First and foremost, Hera goes to Aphrodite with a contrived tale of how she wishes to go see Okeanos and Tethys and “reignite the passion” between them that has been lost (she wants to return them to the same marriage bed). But in order to accomplish this act she requires the “zone” of Aphrodite which will make her irresistible to mortal men and gods. Aphrodite willingly gives the zone over citing the fact that Hera shares the bed of Zeus as her reason. Interesting to note is that Hera is not explicit about how she wishes to use the zone–is it to give to Tethys so that she is irresistible to Okeanos? Or is it that Hera will have limitless persuasive power over both with the zone? In any case, Hera acquires the belt, and then she goes to see the god Sleep (Hypnos).

Just as Hera played on the weakness of Aphrodite’s position in requesting the zone of her, so here does she play on the weakness Sleep has for a certain Grace, Pasithea.  First, Hera attempted to offer a throne and footstool wrought by Hephaistos, but apparently this is not the first time Hera has made this request of Hypnos, and he is wise to the consequences of interfering with the plans of Zeus. The last time Hera made such a request–after Zeus fell asleep, Hera sent a storm with the help of Boreas (the North Wind) to drive Herakles, her most hated step-son, off course to Kos. When Zeus woke up, however, he threw all the Olympians and gods on Olympus in rage and only retreating to Mother Nyx (Night) saved Sleep from bearing the full fury of wrath of Zeus (14. 245-269). All that said, Sleep, being male, is immediately swayed to do as Hera asks when she offers to him the Grace that he is soft for.

All the pieces in place, Hera then seeks out Zeus at Mount Ida and makes a pretense to request his permission before leaving for Okeanos and Tethys. Looking as good as she does though, and augmented by Aphrodite’s zone, Zeus suggests that they bed-down before she goes–he does not even want to wait the span of time necessary to go to Hera’s house, which we find out in Book 15 would be the span of a thought (15.78-82). He shrouds them in a golden cloud, and Hera buys Poseidon time to undue as much of the harm as Zeus has caused to the Achaians as possible.

The whole scene–and what leads up to it and what comes after (with Iris commanding Poseidon off the battlefield after Zeus sends Hera to convey his will to her) is a fascinating study in the use of varying powers. Hera, knowing her brute force is far less than that of her husband, knows that she can still circumvent his will by deceiving him and Aphrodite, and convincing Sleep to help. All this she does, too, in such a way that she can still swear a holy oath on Styx that she did not put the thought to act against Zeus into Poseidon’s mind (15.35-45). Clearly, she did help Poseidon by distracting Zeus and worked hard to ensure his success, but in the face of the rage of the Olympian she can claim to have been innocent of orchestrating the plan. For those who feel powerless in the wake of the force and strength of their betters, Hera is truly the acme of resourceful cunning in these two books.

All the while that this is happening, Agamemnon, too shows himself to be still a weak and easily discouraged leader. Just as in 9.17-28, so does he again suggest fleeing at 14.65-81 (and if one counts his failed attempt to rouse the battle spirit of his men by reverse psychology, he did the same at 2.111-141). Although Agamemnon is remarkable for his ability on the battlefield, particularly in Book 12, as a leader he is easily discouraged, and he is rightfully admonished by Diomedes in Book 9 and Odysseus in Book 14. The students, as any person reading this epic poem might imagine, maintain a low opinion of Agamemnon’s gift for marshaling the men and maintaining morale. Interestingly, when asked who they would prefer leading the troops, many suggest Diomedes, but most suggest Odysseus. One, however, suggested that Odysseus, though he leads well, especially in the aftermath of Agamemnon’s speech in Book 2, is of higher value in his current place as the man who “gets things done”: whether he be re-invigorating troops in Book 2, or drawing off lines for one on one combat in Book 3, or going as an envoy to Achilleus in Book 9 or stalking through the night for information in Book 10, Odysseus is the man “who gets the job done.”

Patroklos’ request to don the armor of Achilleus at the suggest of Nestor was touched on, but largely it will be discussed during seminar this upcoming Wednesday in the wake of Patroklos’ death. For one of the most hotly debated topics of seminars on Homer’s Iliad is this: who is responsible for the death of Patroklos? In our next post, we will delve into the subtleties and complexities of this question.

Nota Bene*The students are beginning to see that that which is flashy, superficial, and without substance is weak and without value, not simply in Homer’s Iliad but in the world around them.