Talk:Iliad

Refs needed

This needs a reference to go back on the page.

Of the many themes in the Iliad, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he

, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he has two options: he can either live a long, unremarkable life at home or else he can die young and gloriously as a mercenary warrior. Military adventuring (that is, pillage and plunder) was a way of life in pre-Homeric times, and the many ruins of thick-walled cities and fortresses in the region give silent testimony to the fear that must have characterized life in the ancient world.

For some men, military adventuring is a more attractive choice than staying home on the farm. Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong. One of the remarkable things about the Iliad is the way that Achilles, especially in Book 9, both embraces concepts of honor and glory and also rejects them. It should be noted that, despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the story, Hector probably best displays the qualities of an ancient

Mediterranean hero.

he Olympian pantheon is portrayed as a scheming, squabbling family, unhappy in their domination by the The Olympian pantheon is portrayed as a scheming, squabbling family, unhappy in their domination by the all-powerful Zeus . Driving home this divine selfishness, the characters with "godlike" ancestry and qualities-- Achilles' strength, Helen's beauty-- tend to act carelessly, ignoring the far-reaching consequences of their emotional decisions. The more practical heroes, such as Odysseus and Hector, are often put in the position

of cleaning up after their reckless comrades.

spoilers

Do we really need a spoilers warning? We're talking about the Trojan war here, something that took place over 3000 years ago...Matt gies 08:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly; 3000 years ... some might have forgotten the plot ;-).
More seriously; I find the warning reasonable as not everyone knows the story (I actually only know few who have read the Illiad and personally know it merely through greek history).--Martin 16:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

...illustrating how ridicular those spoiler notices are anyway. They are something of a geeks' obsession. You would expect an article about a certain story to actually (gasp) contain information about the story, and if your immaculate ignorance is important to your enjoyment of the plot, you will just not read the article :) dab 08:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, a spoiler warning is not necessary. This is an epic poem, not a suspense thriller. Save the spoiler warning for the film "Troy." Attaching a spoiler warning here would be as ridiculous as attaching one to the discussion of the bible.

Ollie This should be seen as history, not so much a story, and therefore there is no real reason to have a spoiler.

Characters section

do we need it at all? There's a mind-blowingly detailed list at Trojan war, and all major characters are introduced in the plot outline anyway. dab 08:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be a little pruning of redundancy. This article should concentrate on the specifics of the poem (OCD has a page of literary-type analysis for instance, questions of authorship etc) and just summarize events as described in the Iliad, linking to Trojan war for the full quasi-history; some of the war story is based on non-Homeric sources. Stan 13:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Full characters can exist on another page. --Oldak Quill 22:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Long intro

Two things. The intro seems to be getting a bit large, with someone from Perdue just adding a big paragraph on the homosexual relationship between Achilles and Petroklos. Can we trim this down a bit, and put that into the body of the article, where it belongs? Also, I don't believe that the phrase "queer scholars" is generally accepted. Does one have to be queer to study homosexuality? How about simply "scholars". --Sean Kelly 18:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

God-like adjective

In the Lattimore translation, Homer describes several characters as "god-like." I can remember three off the top of my head: Achilleus, Paris Alexandros, and Sarpedon. These are three specific examples, so, saying that Achilleus is only one of two characters in the poem described as god-like is in error. I am pretty sure there have been a total of about four or five characters described this way, and I'm only on the fifth book. 66.32.166.92

Actually, the description of 'god-like' or as it might also be translated 'brilliant' (ie. Gk. 'dios' which stems from an Indo-European root concerned with light, from which we get the name like Zeus), is meaningless for the most part. It is merely a metrical device used in the formulation of epic. In other words, when the poet was constructing a line in which a certain name appeared and which lacked a certain metrical value of syllables, he inserted stock words that fit in place. Thus we get things like 'brilliant Akhilleus' and 'swift-footed Akhilleus', epithets which don't for certain agree with character traits (many heroes that bear the epithet 'blameless' really don't seem that blameless, for example), but serve metrical purpose. This should thus not be taken as any form of character description, and if two or more heroes bear it only means their names might be metrically the same. Lattimore deals with this matter in his introduction to the Iliad. Anyway, the sum total is that many heroes may then bear the epithet, and to use it to say anything about Akhilleus' character or the character of any other hero is sketchy at best. Alexaion 04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

'Widely read' translations

Hi, I've corrected the number of widely read translations from four to five - Martin Hammond's version is published by Penguin and used at an educational level, so it seems rather major to myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.187.220 (talk • contribs)

Hammond's translation is only the the second-best-selling version published by Penguin (and unlike the others, Hammond lacks a Wikip. article assessing his notability). Also, this addition was made in a way that looks a bit too much like an ill-informed advertisement. Some specific difference between it and the other translations might get close to WP:NPOV and WP:V. But "closest to the original text" is in no way a neutral or verifiable claim, it's something that only belongs in a marketing blurb from the publisher. I'm removing this addition. Wareh 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an odd dismissal to a widely regarded British (English) translation, in fact the Translations into English section itself has no references to back up the claims of quality of translation. Also assessing an author's credibility upon the existance of a wikip. entry a dangerous precident. I do agree that specific quality of translations needs to be complimented with some form of reference, but if Hammond's translation is, say, backed up with a Classical Review journal entry why shouldn't the other translations provided? 82.46.43.160 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that it would be better for critical estimations to be cited for all of them. That said, I think what the article says now is a fairly cautious and accurate statement of the character and intention of the different approaches. Note that no translation is described with an obviously non-NPOV superlative like "closest to the original text." I'm sure no reliable source has said this about Hammond's translation because it isn't true. In any case, praising translations with superlatives is something I hope we can all agree is extremely inappropriate in the article. I'd be very glad to see a sentence added of the form, ideally, "Martin Hammond, in his translation, has sought to [insert quote from his translator's preface]." Wareh 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The priest and Apollo

I am flummoxed by a misrepresentation of the facts. The Background section erroneously states that the priest prays for Apollo to smite the Achaeans, and that Apollo does so, before the Iliad opens. These events are in fact the opening of the poem. However, without a major rewrite of the opening of the next section, I can't move the facts to where they should be, and neither can I do that without losing the focus on Achilles's rage, which is important and valuable. The whole story with the plague, the seer, Odysseus's sacrifice ship, and Agamemnon's reason for taking Achilles's girl is complicated and hard to reduce. Anyone feeling up to the task? --Darksasami 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had a shot at adding a few more details from book 1. Let me know what you think.

Translations

"Lombardo's translation is generally the one most often recommended by classics scholars because of its faithfulness to the Greek and its modern vernacular style."

Huh? As a classics scholar, I have to disagree.

Here's an appraisal I wrote of good ole Stanley a few months ago:

"Lombardo: Very inaccurate (maybe worse than fagels), too interpretive (not as bad as fagels). Here's a good random example from I.514-16:

Lattimore's version (which is extremely accurate and hardly interpretive at all): 'Bend your head and promise me to accomplish this thing, or else refuse it, you have nothing to fear, that I may know by how much I am the most dishonoured of all gods.'

Here is Lombardo's version: Give me a clear yes or no. Either nod in assent Or refuse me. Why should you care if I know How negligible a goddess I am in your eyes.

While the meaning is superficially similar in both passages, the important resonant theme of fear is carelessly left out of Lombardo's translation (but still explicitly exists in the original), and Thetis has a sassy attitude in the Lombardo; it doesn't sound like she's supplicating Zeus, it sounds like she's putting him on a guilt trip. Pardon my French, but Lombardo is a douche."

I have appraisals of each of the other common translations:

Richmond Lattimore. University of Chicago Press. This is the best. There really can't be much argument about that. There are plenty of reasons, but the best one is process of elimination. So, in no particular order, the other translations readily available:

Mandelbaum: This retard spoke at my college graduation. It was the most incomprehensible, senile drivel I've ever heard in my whole life. I strongly dissuade anyone from purchasing anything that he wrote or translated.

Fagels: Idiot. Pompous, arrogant, idiot. Bad translation. Extremely inaccurate. Unnecessarily poetic and fruity. Too interpretative (and what's worse, his interpretations are wrong). Gets way too much credit from way too many dilettantes

Chapman: Translated in rhymed couplet verse. That automatically makes it the worst translation of anything ever, regardless of what that pseudo-intellectual Keats had to say.

Pulleyn: Haven't seen this one before. He's an Oxford professor with a specialty in Ancient Greek prayer, if that means anything to you.

Butler: Translated in 1898 (and you can tell). Many revisions have been made to the authoritative original text since then, and important, formative interpretive scholarship has been done. This translation has not been informed by those ideas.

Rieu/Jones: Not a good translation. Not very precise (i.e. they fail to translate entire lines of text). Plus, it's published by Penguin, and I learned long ago that when it comes to classical literature and the Great Books, Penguin buys the rights to the cheapest translation, prints it on the cheapest paper with the cheapest binding, and sells it to the public for 5 times what it is worth.

Pope: Translated in 1720. Ugh.

And that brings us to Fitzgerald, Lattimore's only serious competition: I like Fitzgerald. I love his Odyssey. I think it's better than Lattimore's. I think Lattimore "misses the point" of the Odyssey. Fitzgerald is interpretative and not extremely literal, but his interpretations are generally sound (even if I don't agree with a lot of them) and his "voice" is sometimes a better reflection of the nuances and connotations in the original Greek than Lattimore's cold calculating accurate translating. That's a good distinction; Lattimore is all about denotation, Fitzgerald is all about connotation. In a perfect world, you would read the Iliad with both of these translations side-by-side. But of course that's too cumbersome.

Lattimore has to carry the day because he sticks to the facts. He doesn't try to change the original poem or pollute it with his own thoughts or opinions about "what the Iliad is REALLY about." His style is not as beautiful in English as Fitzgerald (or even <gasp> Fagels), and it is more difficult to read. Sometimes you have to plod through this translation. But if you're looking for a translation that will let you think for yourself and won't try to indoctrinate you with the preposterous opinions of some imbecilic professor, this is it. You get a pure, stripped down, accurate rendition of Homer; you have to do all the analysis and interpretation yourself, but that's why you have a brain."

I have since been forced to modify my appraisal of Rieu's translation after basically reading it and changing my mind (although I think Richmond is still the "best"). Obviously, none of that is NPOV, but it should be clear that I am familiar with many of the different methods of translating, and have translated over 5K lines of Homer myself, so I think I could do a good job with a section on differing methodologies. If it hasn't been written already, I can whip up a draft and submit it here for (presumably massive) editing.

Well, at least you acknowledge that your evaluation of these translations isn't NPOV. I too am a classics scholar, and I think Lombardo's translation is pretty good in spots, especially if you get the chance to hear him perform it himself--and that's where it works best, as an oral performance. Lombardo is definitely trying to translate the feel of the Greek into an equivalent modern idiom--for instance, his "Works and Days" is in a distinctly folksy style--and it doesn't always work. However, the parts of his Iliad and Odyssey that I've read and heard work really well. For instance, I like the passage you quote above. This is a place where I do think that Thetis is being "sassy." Remember, she once saved Zeus from a revolt of the gods! (Achilles refers to this earlier in Book 1.) So, Zeus owes her big time. She is putting him on a guilt trip. (If you haven't, you should read Laura Slatkin's book "The Power of Thetis"--she demonstrates that Thetis has a lot of leverage over Zeus.)

Also, have you read any Mandelbaum, or are you basing your impressions on his graduation speech only? He may be senile now, but he's produced beautiful translations of the Aeneid and Dante, which are both worth reading. His Iliad isn't as good as some other translations, but we are very lucky to have several fine translations to choose from.

Finally, Pope's translation is awesome, a wonderful example of 18th century epic style. It's obviously not the kind of thing one wants from a 20th/21st century translation--our ideas of poetic style have changed a lot since then--but it's a great product of its time.

Anyway, a section on translation seems like a good idea to me, especially if it has input from someone who's done a lot of translating--but try not to be so scornful of Lomardo et al. He may not be the most recommended translator of the Iliad, but there are quite a few courses that use his translation out there. Fagles is also common, but I think Lattimore is still most commonly used, and I'd agree that it is the best of the bunch. I have to disagree with you about the degree of Lattimore's not "polluting" the text with his own ideas and interpretations--all translations are interpretations, after all! Remember that old Italian proverb, traduttore traditore. Akhilleus 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Robert Frost's definition of poetry as "that which is lost in translation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Martin Hammond's? I found it boring personally, much preferred Rieu's. I don't see the point of straightforward translations, might as well just read the original, it's just as much effort the english is so unwieldy. Colmfinito 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the chronological snobbery isn't too apparent here, is it? Typical anti-Medieval nonsense. You can die now, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

removed dead link

[1]

English translations & External links redundancy

Links to full text in the External links section should probably be scraped since they are already in the English translations section.

Section on Achilles and Patroclus

The section on the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus has grown beyond discussion of the relationship in the Iliad to include other interpretations of the characters' relationship in Classical texts. Would it be appropriate to spin that into an article of its own, with a reference here, and cut the content on this page to discussion of what's actually in Homer? If we created Achilles and Patroclus or something like that it could also be linked from the characters' individual pages and other pages discussing Greek homosexuality, etc. Do others think this is a good idea, or should the full content remain here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. This is the article about the Iliad, not about the "Greek vice" of Classical times. I daresay the pederastic aspects belong to the 5th and 4th centuries and should not burden this article on the Homeric work. We have Pederasty in ancient Greece, where such discussions are fully adequate, I suggest linking there, or export to a separate Achilles and Patroclus. There is also Patroclus#Relationship_to_Achilles. I am also very doubtful of the merits of Category:Pederastic heroes and deities, and especially of the listing of Achilles and Patroclus in it. dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've created Achilles and Patroclus, and over the next few days will try to reduce the bits on this page that aren't directly relevant to Homer. (Any help, on this page or the new one, is of course welcome.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ɖɸ

Pardon? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

wrong spelling

i think lliad was spelled wrong. i think it is illiad. thats what it says on my books about the illiad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willgfass1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, March 29, 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. --Akhilleus 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Homer

I don't believe it to be fair to say whether or not Homer was a real individual. If you wish to say so, then you should go to the biography of Jesus and change that too. No-one knows whether or not either of these men ever lived. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibssa 9 (talk • contribs) 09:09, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

Erm... a couple of points here.

1. The article doesn't make a claim about whether Homer was a real individual; it says "Scholars dispute whether Homer existed, and whether he was one person, but it is clear that the poems spring from a long tradition of oral poetry." And it's said that for a while.
2. The evidence for the existence of a real Jesus of Nazareth is a lot more solid than that for the existence of a real Homer. Jesus may not be mentioned in texts contemporary with his own life, but he is mentioned in texts written no more than a generation later. The earliest recorded mention of Homer is, I believe, a century or more after the generally accepted date for the writing of the Homeric epics. Although the historicity of Jesus is a legitimate question, our knowledge of Jesus is far, far more solid than our knowledge of Homer. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

reorganization

I just made an edit to the article which included shifting around some sections. I intend to do more, but I'd like some input first. The article as it stands has a great deal of overlap with other articles, especially Trojan war; I don't think the Iliad article needs to repeat all the information about the beginning and end of the war that's covered at Trojan war. I also don't think the Iliad article needs the list of major characters, since this information is also at Trojan war. So I'd like to delete the overlapping material, but I want to make sure that there are no serious objections first.

--Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted the entire "The Iliad as oral tradition" section, which is useful material not duplicated elsehwere so far as I know. Stan 13:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stan, that's true. That section sucked, and needed a rewrite. The material in Oral tradition is far superior. The biggest problem in the section here was the last paragraph, which said that the presence of similes and metaphors in Homer was due to oral tradition. That's goofy; similes and metaphors are present in most written literature. Worse, the last paragraph presented Homer's use of oral tradition as a conscious choice to better communicate with his audience. But Homer didn't compose orally because he chose to; he composed orally because that's the way poets worked back then.

I'll restore the first two paragraphs of "The Iliad as oral tradition", but I don't think the last paragraph is useful. At some point I'll revise the section. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the last para - I was looking more at the other two. There has been a lot of research in how general theories of oral tradition apply to the Iliad, could probably be expanded up to its own article by someone knowledgeable in the topic (not me :-) ). Stan 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

transliteration

Why is it when describing a greek work of literature we are using latin transliterations of names? While talking of Achilles and Hecuba would be OK in an article about the myth, shouldn't we stick to Akhilleus and Hekabe when writing about the text? I am posting here as I don't want to wade in and start changing transliterations without someone else agreeing - it does not seem to have been discussed before. --5telios 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on names is to use the most common form in English. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a myth, text, or geographic locale. Akhilleus and Hekabe are in some sense more accurate, and are commonly used in works of scholarship, but Achilles and Hecuba are far more common. Same with Menelaos and Patroklos--Menelaus and Patroclus are more common. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. live and learn...--5telios 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Egyptian authorship

Please see discussion at Talk:Odyssey. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dating

Small point of fact - Martin West advocates a 7th century dating for the Iliad, but he seems to prefer a 6th century date for the Odyssey (see his article "Iliad and Aethiopis" in Classical Quarterly 2003 - he may have published further since then). --Ancus 13.13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Lattimore in his introduction to the Iliad he states that "For the Illiad and Odyssey, full and reasonably sound texts were available from at least the end of the sixth century B.C.; possibly, and I would say probably, from long before that." (Lattimore 1961, pg. 13) So when it is written in the wiki file that it is dated to the 7th or 6th century this must be some sort of mistake. Because how can it be dated to the 7th or 6th century when there is a great lapse of time between when it was first TOLD and when it was actually WRITTEN? --User:Aka khan 20 November 2006

First of all, don't treat as fact that there was a lapse; when Lattimore says "probably...long before that," he means it! Since the poems are generally believed to have been composed orally, composition and original writing down need not have occurred at the same time. But most scholars do combine the final composition with its transcription (for example, with the poet dictating his work to a scribe). But when scholars speak of "full and reasonably" sound texts, or some such, while they could be endorsing the view that the original poet's work was elaborated by others in an oral tradition before being written down, they are more usually (and soundly, I believe) making a point about textual criticism, which is that the poem in the interval that worries you underwent changes, not necessarily significant ones from the modern reader's point of view, but in dialect, sound changes, etc. In this case, scholars are looking at our available sources and using them to reconstruct an "original," and they want to be very careful that if all our sources derive from a "standardized" text (say, one produced in the Athens of Pisistratus), then they do not make the false claim to have reconstructed a form of the poem that existed before that standardization process. Bottom line (if I can offer one without citations): there are no generally persuasive and fatal objections to a complete, and even written, Iliad in the 7th century B.C. Wareh 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Book X

Should it be mentioned that Book X of the Iliad may have been written at a later date than Homer? Dondoolee 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If adding this idea, I would do so in the form of two facts: (1) the scholia's telling us that Book 10 is an interpolation is quite unique (as opposed to the sweeping verdicts of modern analysts, which will criticize anything), (2) West's edition marks it all as an interpolation, citing especially Georg Danek's Studien zur Dolonie. Wareh 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I added this to the article and also to the The Odyssey and it was removed by User:Shanes with the dismissive comment that this was "sillyness". Why? I see it as perfectly reasonable.The Illiad and The Odyssey are two of the great seminal works of Western literature, and saying that it doesn't deserve a spoiler warning makes the assumption that no-one will read this works for enjoyment's sake and/or that everyone knows the plot and history. I don't believe that either of these is true. I think we should give the Illiad's and Odyssey's plot proper recognition. These are works of literature, are NOT historical accounts. Compare Richard III (play) and War and Peace which both have spoiler warnings. Bwithh 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warnings are silly. This isn't a review site, but an encyclopedia, and any reasonable reader of an encyclopedia should expect a plot summary in an article on a major work of literature. If someone hasn't read the poems and believes that a plot summary might spoil their enjoyment, I would suggest that they stop reading articles on the poems, and, you know, actually read the poems...

I would gladly remove the spoiler warnings from Richard III (play) and War and Peace. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And I would gladly re-insert them. What you're arguing against is the whole idea of spoiler warnings in general - not for the Odyssey/Illiad in particular. So why don't you remove them from all the film, novel, play etc. articles? See what the consensus is then? But that kind of discussion is for manual of style guideline reform pages, not for picking on particular works. And it's not as if these are small poems... Illiad and Odyssey are works of epic length Bwithh 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am, in fact, against any spoiler warnings, especially for a classic piece of literature or film. I would remove a spoiler warning from Frankenstein or Mildred Pierce, but I would probably leave them in for a recent novel, or a movie that was recently released. But you're not addressing my argument, which is that in an encyclopedia, a discussion of the plot is something that any reader should expect. The section titles "the story of the Iliad" or "Book summaries" are also pretty good indicators of what's ahead. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To me inserting "spoiler" warnings in an article on a clasical text as the Iliad is about as ridiculous as having them in, say, the Genesis or the Mahabharata articles. Learning about the Trojan War, or how Achilles Kills Hector and is later killed by Paris isn't "spoiling" the Iliad. It is educating the reader on the Iliad, as an encyclopedia article should. And I doubt anyone reading the Iliad doesn't know the plot beforehand. I'm against "spoiler" warnings on wikipedia in general, but when it comes to classical epics like the Iliad or the Odyssey "spoiler" warnings become really comical and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Shanes 10:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the chorus: putting a spoiler warning on a classical text is silly. There is no need to "protect" the reader from plot details of a 2800-year-old text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: also with Akhilleus's points, above, that a good encyclopedia article has to include a summary of the plot, and that a section title such as "the story of the Iliad" is sufficient warning. Andrew Dalby 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a consensus that spoiler warnings aren't needed for the Iliad and Odyssey, could we agree that spoiler warnings aren't needed for classical literature in general? I ask because there's a spoiler warning on at least one tragedy, Euripedes' Bacchae; I haven't checked very widely for others. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that, but I'd like us to try to find a wider forum for this discussion before we go on a tag-removing rampage through all classical pages. (This seems to me like the sort of thing people get needlessly upset about, and it would be good to be able to point to existing discussion on some central page when the inevitable protests occur.) I'll drop notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning to see if we can get a solid consensus on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. I've removed the spoiler tag at The Bacchae; if anyone spots any others, feel free to remove them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like the opinion of someone who hasn't written about classical Greek and Latin literature, but would read about it. I'd like to have spoiler warnings on even classical Greek literature, but only for fiction (not for actual historical events), and only for large plot twist / ending details, especially if they appear outside of a "plot summary" section. We can't assume that every reader allready knows the content of classical literature (whether classical Greek or Latin, or the contemporary "classics"). Individual wikiprojects and article collaborators are of course welcome to develop consensus on individual articles. Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is there for you if some of your editors want spoiler warnings on specific sections, and to discourage improper use of spoiler warnings (like ROT-13). If your wikiproject establishes a consensus on not using spoiler warnings, you must of course leave room for exceptions, just like the Spoiler warning guideline leaves you room to use common sense. --GunnarRene 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GunnarRene. I'd like to have the spoiler warning on all works of fiction. The age of the work is not really relevant. For any person, there will always be a time before they read the work, no matter how old it is. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that some readers will come to an article such as this for background information prior to enjoying the book. For example, they may want to know how old it is, or how we have classified the work, or whether it has ever been translated to their language, or into Braille. If they want to read about the spoilers, all they have to do is scroll past the notice. Johntex\^talk 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is absurd. Spoiler warnings are for new works of fiction, or works of fiction whose enjoyment explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret (e.g. The Sixth Sense). I challenge you to find a single person whose enjoyment of The Iliad was "spoiled" by the foreknowledge that Achilles kills Hector. That's not how classical fiction works. Classical fiction was written with the assumption that the audience would know the general outline of the story: the enjoyment comes from how the tale is told, not its plot. Heck, The Iliad opens with a summary of the story: "Sing, Muse, the rage of Achilles." Not all fiction depends on plot details remaining secret for its enjoyment, and spoiler warnings should be restricted to works of fiction which do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see Spoiler warnings on candy wrappers, book covers, front pages of newspapers, and of course, all wikipedia articles. The Jackal God 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters that don't feaure in the poem

"Calchas, (Κάλχας) a powerful Greek prophet and omen reader, who guided the Greeks through the war with his predictions." He does not actually feature in Homer's original poem. He has crept into later works, and in some versions Helenus takes his place. I think this should be removed. Imagine in a film article, like King Kong, where the film has been remade. "New" characters such as some of the saliors should not be in the article of the original film. There is no difference here. Fuzzibloke 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to re-read Book 1 of the Iliad, because Calchas certainly takes part there. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Ok, I think there's a problem with the way the article's laid out, because right now we've got two plot summaries, and a major section and a subsection called "the story of the Iliad". I'm sure this is my fault, from edits I made months ago, but I'm not sure how to solve the problem. Anyone else have an idea? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Deception of Zeus

I oppose this: I think there's enough to say about the episode on its own. Andrew Dalby 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of merging; is every episode of the Iliad to have its own article? For instance, should there be an article on the Teichoscopia? You could probably write a fairly substantial piece on this bit of the poem, but does Wikipedia need it? Personally, I don't think so. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I say merge too-- otherwise, to be fair, every book would need an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.190.34.194 (talk • contribs).

I oppose a merger- mot every issue faced by the characters of the Iliad would require a separate article just because one would. This is a significant enough issue from the storyline that would be searched for sepatately. the infamous rmx 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger - this section of the Iliad, as well as many others warrant an article of their own as they have been studied extensively. Currently the main Iliad article does not contain these, and if it were to it would end up enormous. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:NOT#PAPER) so there is not limit to the information it may contain. As long as it is notable and verifiable it can be included. Madmedea 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose too, the treatment of the section is rather too detailed to be imported as is into this article, which in fact has only a single line summary of each book. Yes, I would welcome a separate article on each book, and if we had that, the "deception" article should be merged into that on book 14. This article should however focus more on summarizing the Iliad itself, and less on repeating background material already treated on Trojan War. dab (??) 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section "Key incidents and passages" to house links to articles which deal with specific sections of the Iliad in detail. In the future the articles linked to could be merged into Book articles if that is felt to be a good idea. As there seems to be a fair consensus against the merger, I'm going to remove the tag. Madmedea 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

I think this article needs a IPA pronunciation guide for the name, since capital i looks identical to lower case L in the standard wikipedia font. --Ozhiker 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy on the pronunciation of names? Attic Greek or conventional English? --Scottandrewhutchins 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles are titled in English so we generally give the standard English pronunciations. If a Greek equivalent is also given, then it is sometimes accompanied by its own IPA transcription. (I doubt any of this is quite on the level of policy.) In this case, Ozhiker is concerned about the word "Iliad," which is an English (not Greek) word (no typographical ambiguity with Ἰλιάς). Wareh 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Source of translation used in article

The source of the following translation used in the article should be noted, hopefully with a footnote:

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί' Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε' ἔθηκεν,

Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus, the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans...

- Patiwat 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Female characters

There was briefly a separate listing of female characters. It got reverted out, but I have restored it. To put it simply, there are problems with characterizing Helen and Briseis as either Achaeans or Trojans. Andrew Dalby 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being a pedant, but it didn't get 'reverted out' it was part of the anonymous 'passive voice' edit - the rest of which was good. But well spotted, and I agree. Madmedea 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, and I didn't mean to criticize anybody. Andrew Dalby 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Honor and Glory/ Right and Wrong

I'm sort of throwing a question to Wikipedia experts out of curiosity, under the guise of "Citation neded!"

"Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong."

Where do you figure? Is there a scholarly reference? I mean, I believe you, but the question interests me. Thanks for helping a Wikipedia newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.160.46.254 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Original research

Where are the references for the analysis in the Story of the Iliad section? Since there can be no original research in WP, they need to be taken from some source. If one of the references listed are the source, it needs to be identified as the source of the analysis where the analysis appears. We could remove it to a separate section, as it has little to do with the Iliad's story, and would be more appropriate it an analysis section (assuming we could get references) APAULCH 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What material do you think is unreferenced? It's not original research to do a plot summary, although we should indicate what primary sources are being summarized. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainly this part:

<blockqoute>Of the many themes in the Iliad, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he has two options: he can either live a long, unremarkable life at home or else he can die young and gloriously as a mercenary warrior. Military adventuring (that is, pillage and plunder) was a way of life in pre-Homeric times, and the many ruins of thick-walled cities and fortresses in the region give silent testimony to the fear that must have characterized life in the ancient world.

For some men, military adventuring is a more attractive choice than staying home on the farm. Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong. One of the remarkable things about the Iliad is the way that Achilles, especially in Book 9, both embraces concepts of honor and glory and also rejects them. It should be noted that, despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the story, Hector probably best displays the qualities of an ancient Mediterranean hero.</blockqoute>

This is all excellent analysis, but it should have a reference. The Iliad never states the ideas above, so it isn't part of the work. APAULCH 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most of this is OR. There's a few options: you can either remove the material entirely, remove the material from the article and put it on the talk page in the hopes that someone will provide a citation, or you can put a {{fact}} tag in the article, which will appear as in the article. Personally, I think the analysis is a bit off, so I'd delete the material from the article, and leave it here on the talk page. But since you raised the issue, I'll let you decide how to proceed. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Date

is there a more detailed discussion of the date of the Iliad somewhere? at Homer or Homeric Question maybe? I may be oldfashioned, but I am most familiar with the 8th century as a solid consensus. I think Burkert goes for the early 8th, if not late 9th. Others may prefer the later 8th or early 7th. Is there any reference for the claim that "many, including West" now favour the 7th, or even 6th(!)? Mention of Bernal's "several centuries earlier" probably qualifies as WP:FRINGE(?) I note that de:Ilias has "730 BC, plus or minus 50-100 years". dab (�) 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not a more detailed discussion, but there should be one at Homer, eventually. The 7th century date is actually quite common now (in Anglo-American scholarship, not German). Burkert actually believes the Iliad postdates 663 BC based on a reference to Egyptian Thebes in 9.381-84. Not a great argument, but that's what he says. Other scholars have stronger reasons for the 7th-century date, one of which is the absence of identifiably Homeric scenes on vase painting until the latter half of the 7th cent. I think the scholar who's argued this most strongly is Snodgrass. Bernal is fringy, but there are bona fide classical scholars who go for a 10th/9th century date; they are in the distinct minority, though. I'll try to get more concrete references so we can put this in the Homer article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

that would be great, thanks! dab (�) 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hacket Illiad.jpg

Image:Hacket Illiad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone read ancient Greek?

Hello, is there anyone who can read ancient Greek and can verify the accuracy of the change in this edit? Thanks. --Kyoko 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct form is Ἰλιάς. I think Ἰλιάδα is the modern form. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

intro text

Would there be uproar if some changes were made to the intro text? I am thinking of the following:

The Iliad (Greek Ἰλιάς) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, traditionally accepted to be a blind Ionian poet. Most modern scholars consider the epics to be the oldest extant literature in the Greek language, dating to the 8th or 7th century BC, although the greater antiquity of Hesiod's works is argued by some scholars. The existence of a single author for the poems is disputed as the poems themselves show evidence of a long oral tradition and hence, multiple authors.

The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilion, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word "Iliad" means "pertaining to Ilion" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia), the state centered around Ilium, over which Priam reigned. The names "Ilium" and "Troy" are often used interchangeably.

Old version:

The Iliad (Greek Ἰλιάς) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, supposedly a blind Ionian poet, or collection of nameless poets. Most modern scholars consider the epics to be the oldest literature in the Greek language, possibly equalled by Hesiod, dated to the 8th or 7th century BC.

The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilium, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word "Iliad" means "pertaining to Ilium" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia), the state centered around Ilium, over which Priam reigned. The names "Ilium" and "Troy" are often used interchangeably.

--5telios 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I think it would be good to rewrite even more--the intro doesn't mention Achilles! Plus, I'm not sure that this explanation of the double name of Troy/Ilion is corerect, or worth putting in the intro. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby steps :) --5telios 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Satire?

OK. The Iliad is currently categorized as satire. I'm assuming it's a good-faith edit by someone who doesn't know what satire is, so I'm taking it out.

It's also possible that I don't know what satire is. If that's the case, that's why this topic is here. superluser_tc 2007 December 06, 04:44 (UTC)

Fresca?

Why is Fresca under the See Also section on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.67.55 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Chaucer did Troilus before Shakespeare. Chaucer's Troilus is arguably better thank Shakespeare's (it's tough to compare a poem to a play, even a verse play), and it is certainly more important to literature. I recommend adding Chaucer at the least, and probably removing Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Virgil's Aeneid

Any reason why the Aeneid isn't mentioned in this article? Surely it's relevant, it offers a parody through Virgil's one-upmanship, and is at least far more relevant than "Manowar's" 28 minute song about the Iliad Plebmonk (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is still very much a work in progress. Certainly it would be worth mentioning the Aeneid, but calling it a "parody" is probably a bad idea... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Textual history?

I think the article should discuss the textual history – how has the text come down to us, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

the Themes section

Is anyone else troubled by how OR most of the themes section sounds? Perhaps having a "themes" section is a bit too high-school-ish. How about a section on "Critical Interpretations"? It would be helpful if someone has access to JSTOR. --Quadalpha (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)