Ιλιάδα

Better than the movie! Once you get the rhythm it sucks you in like a time machine. Amazing.

A king offends his strongest ally in the middle of a war.Good. It's very repetitive, but its interesting.

The Iliad beings in the ninth year of the Trojan war and the Greeks laying siege to Troy's capital. The 24 book story covers about a seven week period that sees the Greeks beaten back to where their ships are laid up, enduring slaughter at Trojan hands because their hero Achilles refuses to fight; he's angry that Agamemnon took the Trojan woman he'd selected as his prize. Not until Achilles' battle buddy Patroclus is killed (in Achilles' armor) by the Trojan hero Hector does Achilles rise to fight. When Hector dies, we have a good sense that Troy won't be long either.Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey are oft referenced as a pair, but it's always the Odyssey that ends up assigned reading in American junior high and middle schools. They're both long (epic!) but I assume teachers pass on the Iliad due to the amount of violence and perhaps fewer "teachable moments." The Iliad is probably one of those 'must reads' in the profession of arms, especially for infantry. I would assign it to any elected official overseeing or directing military activity. The war between Greeks and Trojans isn't just a human affair, rather the gods of Olympus are ever meddling, sometimes influencing and at other times outright spiriting their favorites out of the field of battle to spare their lives. The gods are capricious, given to their own passions, and prone to change their minds, so they frankly bear strong resemblance to politicians if one wants to relate it to real life. It's a reminder that there are always two conflicts going on, one on the battle field and one back in the halls of government; they don't always combine well.I'm unable to vouch for the quality of the translation in terms of remaining true to the Greek, but Robert Fagles deserves much credit for turning it into beautiful, modern English epic poem. The usual complaints against the Iliad are the instances of repetition and a fathomless well of detail when it comes to describing mortal combat with spear, sword, and the occasional rock stoving a skull in. As much as the Iliad glorifies manly virtues in war (like courage, bravery, camaraderie) it also showcases its horrors (the violence, fear, and waste) to the same degree. One comes away with the feeling at the end: why did we bother with all of this? What did we gain? Can we even quantify what we lost, or is it immeasurable? Overall, a long read, but worth the epic journey from page to page, book to book.

Read it, love it!

This version was quite the tome and I suffered from RSI just from holding the book. I have embarked upon the Great Books series as set out by Hutchins and Adler at the University of Chicago and this great tale is number 1. This is no small task but it is essential. Time and again I have seen movies about Achilles and the fall of Troy but there is something to be said about the various translations and notes that direct the reader to a long history of debates, arguments, and disagreements over Homer (or whether it was Homers), and then the translations that incorporate the Latin amendments (such as Samuel Butler's), and then how the "folk tradition" has twisted and turned this nation-building epic to suit different times. The movies have it that Hector was simply out-classed, not that he ran three laps around the walls of Troy trying to escape Achilles, not that the gods intervened time and again, even helping to kill other soldiers and so on. I like the introduction's idea of Hector as a complete man, husband, father, prince, warrior; whereas Achilles is the unbalanced warrior, hell-bent on death and glory. I have now started on The Odyssey and I did not know that the Trojan horse was not of the first book, I had suspicions but I did not know that Ulysses was the Latin name, and so on. Even the unpacking of these issues helps with my reading of Plato and Aristotle. I felt I had arrived at a place where reading more of the classic scholars made no sense unless I had at least a working grasp of Homer. But the manly ideal that has been bastardised by Hollywood and others has set me thinking deeply. Honour didn't mean masculine aggression at all costs, or that any man could do anything, or that class could not hold one back and so on. In the translation (rather than bastardisation) of the original, an entirely different view of masculinity emerges. These people were all fallible, all helped or thwarted by fortune, the gods played a major role in the plot (religion is all but excluded from the Brad Pitt version of the story), and Paris, a snivelling coward, is not helped out by Hector. Hector hates him! So much to unlearn from reading one of the oldest "western" texts. I shirk at this title - much like the re-writing of Greek ideas about masculinity, all of a sudden the Eastern Europeans get a guernsey in the Great Race Race because they were so brilliant. But it really does set me at ease to now see the portrayals of the Greek ideal and be able to see it for what it was meant to be. This does not help me to feel more secure in the world, but it does help me to see the world differently, and, maybe, more accurately.

And so the Trojans buried Hector breaker of horses.

{Review of E.V. Rieu's prose translation, Penguin Classics} Reading a prose version of The Iliad is like having your learned friend read the poem silently to himself and occasionally pausing to explain to you what's going on. This is a very thorough translation of the action, but you won't grasp why Homer is called a master bard or find his genius. For all the translator's efforts this reads almost like a comic book version minus the pictures. That makes it simple to breeze through and there's no question you'll know the whole story by the end, but you'll not have been swept up by it as you would if you've any ear for poetry. Since I don't, I judge little harm was done in my case. Like the Bible and Shakespeare this tale of men and gods permeates Western culture, but if you've no familiarity with it at all then you might want some context. The Iliad only covers two months of the Greeks' decade-long seige of Troy, and is neither the beginning nor the end of that event. The warriors are larger-than-life, there are powerful interferring gods supporting either side, violent combat is graphically described, and every death gets its eulogy. I always sympathize with the Trojans, which is remarkable in light of the Greek author. A number of the differently spelled names in this edition threw me off. Hera becomes "Here" (leading to many initial misreads of a sentence where I mistook the noun), and Athena is similarly rendered "Athene". Where I expected a Greek named Ajax, here he is "Aias". Prose emphasizes (introduces?) flaws, at least by modern standards: characters bursting into speeches at the most inopportune times, curious repetitions/echoes, lengthy descriptive asides. The battles are mostly an unlikely sequence of staged set pieces that don't transmit the chaos and bewilderment of an actual field of battle. At the conclusion there is a miniature Olympics I wasn't expecting that has some farcical moments. The story is still epic and entertaining no matter how it's told. It's something you'll want familiarity with if you're a student of Western literature, but read a poetic version if you can.

So I don't much like flying. Like really, I do not like flying. And I had to fly to the US for work. In which case the coping mechanism is tranquilisers and a book I have to concentrate on - it serves to distract me. Having read [The Odyssey] earlier in the year, I figured I'd go all classical and try [The Illiad] this time. It's one of those occasions when you know what's going to happen, this is all about how you arrive at the ending. It's quite intense, being set over a limited number of weeks towards the end of the 10 year siege of Troy. Despite the intervention of the gods, the entire thing is very human, with the whole gamut of emotions present, from the great and heroic to the petty. It's all very sad, and there's no sense of resolution at the end of the book, the war continues without seeming to have resolved anything, despite the bloodshed. I found the introductory notes interesting and informative and it was worth wading through them initially.

Dit lijkt een vrij saai boek met vooral talloze, bloederige strijdtaferelen en de erbij horende redevoeringen. Een overdaad aan herhalingen dus. Het werk vormt een mooie eenheid en is veel minder complex van structuur dan bijvoorbeeld de Odyssee. Bovendien is de moraal van het verhaal nogal simplistisch: ieder ondergaat zijn lot, maar de grote helden zorgen ervoor dat ze dat met roem en eer doen.Aan de andere kant steken er tal van verfrissende elementen in:1. de po?tische kracht die uitgaat van de taal (de epitheta), en vooral van sommige scenes: afscheid van Hektor en Andromache, het verdriet van Achilles om zijn vriend Patroklos,...2. de open en stoutmoedige confrontatie tussen de meerderen en hun ondergeschikten, vooral in de controverse rond koning Agamemnoon: herhaaldelijk wordt die door verschillende helden voor vuile vis uitgemaakt en verbaal vernederd. 3. Bovenal getuigt het beeld dat van de godenwereld wordt opgehangen in de eerste plaats van een heel dynamisch en modern aandoend mensbeeld: de goden zijn als mensen met humeuren en luimen, met een hi?rarchie die regelmatig opzij wordt gezet maar toch wordt gerespecteerd als het er op aankomt, met een moraal die wel enkele formele regels volgt maar die tegelijk te pas en te onpas links wordt gelaten. Kortom: het archetype van de vrijheid?Nog enkele andere elementen over het wereld- en mensbeeld:1. De dood is onvermijdelijk en door het lot bepaald (zelfs de goden moeten er zich naar schikken), maar toch kan enige vorm van onsterfelijkheid worden nagestreefd door roemrijke daden te stellen. Dat belet niet dat de Onderwereld voor ieder een oord van verschrikkelijke ellende is. 2. Vrouwen zijn volstrekt ondergeschikt en hun waarde wordt zelfs voor een stuk uitgedrukt in runderen, tenzij voor de echtgenotes of moeders van de helden cfr Andromache (Hektor heeft een "hoofse" relatie tot haar). Uitzondering hierop vormen de vrouwelijke goden die als het erop aankomt wel ondergeschikt zijn, maar geen enkele gelegenheid onbenut laten om hun eigen weg te gaan (Hera, Athene, Afrodite). 3. Het standpunt van de verteller is heel objectivistisch: hij kiest globaal geen partij; wel worden in het verhaal sommige figuren in een minder daglicht gesteld (aan Griekse kant vooral de broers Agamemnoon en Menelaos, aan Trojaanse Paris). 4. De typisch griekse lichaamcultuur is hier al aanwezig: bij de persoonsbeschrijvingen worden vooral de fysieke kenmerken onderstreept; heel veel belang wordt gehecht aan het conserveren van het lichaam na de dood (en omgekeerd voor vijanden aan het zo wreed mogelijk verminken).

I read this on the tail of reading The Song of Achilles by Emmy Miller--I wanted to see if I could detect the homoerotic subtext between Achilles and Patroclus myself. The answer to that is definitely Yes, but now I'm curious what other translations are like. This one--by Stanley Lombardo--is pretty jocular, which suits a poem about battle, I guess. So I wonder how other translators handle it.

What exactly was the point? War sucks? Yeah, we already knew that. Really depressing, unrelenting testosterone-ridden crap.

Quite the epic adventure. I love The Iliad, but it sure is long and tedious. All those battle scenes get old. And all that wailing in grief.But despite all the repetition, it really is good. Lots of bickering gods, vengeful heroes, and, well, wailing.

I listened to the audio version of this and I will have to listen to it again, probably more than once. It's a rambling story, but a great window onto another time and place, and perhaps more importantly, a pre-modern, oral mode of storytelling which I could stand some more of.

It's the Iliad; it is what you make of it. If you compare it to modern story telling, I think a lot of readers will find it lacking, especially with the constant battle scenes. We're used to getting petty drama in our petty dramas, tragic deaths in our tragedies, gory action in our gory action thrillers. This oral tradition has it all mashed up together.

I read The Iliad Penguin Classic edition. This will contain the whole story, as it is good for me to write it out as revision material for my classics exam - if you want just the review part, skip to the paragraph starting with: "In review..."

The theme of this epic poem is 'the wrath of Achilleus', a great Greek warrior who has his new prize-girl taken from him by military commander, Agamemnon during the siege of Troy. Achilleus is livid with Agamemnon and refuses to fight for the Greek forces, allowing the Trojans to win many battles against them.

However, Achilleus' coup does not last long, as his dearest friend Patroklos is killed in battle by the great Trojan warrior, Hektor, whilst wearing Achilleus' armour to inspire his troops and strike fear into the Trojans. Hektor is a family man, and the favourite son of Priam, King of Troy. He is loved throughout Troy, and poses a serious threat for the Greeks in battle - his only match in a fight is Achilleus.

Achilleus is distraught about Patroklos' death and grieves for him and feels suicidal. After a visit from his mother, a goddess named Thetis, he resolves to make up with Agamemnon and join the fighting once again in order to exact revenge on Hektor.

Hektor and Achilleus eventually meet in one-on-one combat, and Hektor is confident that he will either win the battle and secure the Trojan victory over the Achaian forces, or he will die a glorious death and be remembered for all eternity. What Hektor does not realise is the true extent of the wrath of Achilleus. Achilleus strikes Hektor with a spear with the help (trickery) of the gods, and whilst Hektor is still breathing, informs him that his corpse will be treated without a shred of respect. From there, Achilleus finishes him off and drags him in circles around the walls of Troy three times before bringing him back to the Greek camp and throwing him in the dust. Achilleus wakes every morning to drag Hektor's body around the tomb of his friend Patroklos as the sun is rising - but the gods prevent Hektor's corpse from coming to any harm.

It is worth mentioning that Priam eventually receives word from the gods that he must go to the Greek camp to beg for the body of his son from Achilleus. Priam does so, and manages to win the affection of Achilleus, yet he is still dangerous and warns Priam not to anger him further or he will slay him on the spot. Achilleus hands over Hektor's body, and the book ends with an account of Hektor's funeral.

IN REVIEW, The Iliad was a good book to read when learning to write like a professional writer. Homer uses his traditional formulae and tricks of the trade; remember that this was a recited poem and wasn't put down on paper until centuries after Homer's death - despite this, The Iliad is detailed and descriptive, but is often repetitive, as is the feature of a classic epic poem. In retrospect, if you are looking for an account of the fall of Troy, coupled with an Odyssean adventure, read Virgil's Aeneid which tells the story of Aeneas and the founding of Rome. Otherwise, if you are happy with the stale scenery of war, and don't mind the common features of an epic poem, The Iliad is enjoyable.

I gave this three stars to reflect the fact that I liked it, but preferred The Odyssey and The Aeneid.

Confrontation upon confrontation (with some love scenes thrown in) - between man and god, between man and man. A rather incestuous story about what seems to obssess us even to this day. I love Lattimore!

What a great translation.....

I suppose that when something is called a "classic" it's meant to mean something that is inherently interesting, to "everyone". However, in dealing with the Illiad, I'm not really sure how it could appeal to anyone not interested in war. It begins with a very sordid little episode, and continues on and on and on with things that are either unspeakably cruel, or at best strange and difficult, or both. The Catalog of Ships in Book Two of the Illiad in particular stands out as something of truly bureaucratic, census-taking, skill. (Mighty Steve, who was a mighty man, a mighty man indeed, came from Keyport, whose motto is "Pearl of the Bayshore", and also from various surrounding towns like Hazlet, Union Beach and Matawan-Aberdeen, went with him came his seven sons Adam Brian Carl Dan Edmund Fergus and Hans and his uncle Schmitty. They were all warriors. They excelled at decapitation, and other skilled modes of combat. They came with thirty ships.....Mighty John, who was also a mighty man, a mighty, mighty, mighty man, who came from Metuchen, where you can find bookstores, and his various sons and male cousins came from places like Edison, famous for its diversity, and East Brunswick and New Brunswick, where British people used to live, and Keasbey, where there are warehouses. They were all warriors. In fact, they were bloodthirsty piratical skumbags bent on pillaging young women from burning cities. They were good at sharpening axes with their teeth. They came on twenty-five ships, big ones. And then there was Mighty Fred, oh what a Mighty Man he was.....) Sometimes, when they call sometimes a "classic", they mean-- "couldn't get away with it today". ................And then, dawg gone it, somebody else got slain too. (And then Steve slew Nick, son of Boris the Russian, who had come from that country. Mighty Steve speared him right in the face. Nick then fell down, dead. Oh, he's gone.).................And, worst of all, it can provide only a partial and distorted view of the old pagan religion, since, no matter who is doing this or that, Homer's Illiad makes the whole religion the house of Mars, the madness of Mars.... "Juno" can be portrayed as saying this or that, but nothing of her own matrimonial nature survives the bloodshed and the gore; it is really all Jove, Jove and Mars-- war and politics; it's all their game, and everyone else is just there to play as a pawn for this or that. ...........................You could actually get pretty angry if you took seriously some of the things that these guys say. ("Little girl! I'll kill you!") I certainly wouldn't call it great-hearted. ...................................And, if this isn't clear already, I don't understand the *wonder* of it, just because it's (happily!) removed from current circumstances. "You're just a little girl, but I'm not a little pussy like you! I'll smash your skull!"God, I wonder what he was *really* trying to say. *rolls eyes*.......................................Considering that Homer was trying to deify and glorify war, that most sordid of human episodes, I've come to be a little surprised, of what people say about him. (7/10)

06-19-2003I am not the first person who, coming to this late in life, and reading no Greek, have been amazed. I searched for and found Keats' response to it: "On first looking into Chapman's Homer," which eloquently describes a reader's experience and the awe that it produces.This is the first of 'the great books' - first on everyone's list, first written. Now I understand why it is the first book in the western canon. Full of human characters, detailed and evocative description of nature and common life, heart-rending fates meted out by the gods and gruesome battle. I was deeply impressed and wish two things: 1) that I had time to read it again and 2) that I could read it in Greek.

Such the fabulous tale. I've read it several times. Great piece to study as well, it is extraordinarily involved and interesting, not to mention quite funny at times, amidst all of the action and emotion.
Read it.
Oh and P.S. Achilles was a ginger--yes!!

This book was great. I sometimes find reading epic poems in their poetic form distracting so the prose translation was perfect for me. The introduction was brief and general, which is nice in a book that some would call long and difficult. Other than that, one of the greatest stories of all time. The only person I would steer away from this particular version of The Iliad is someone looking for a poetic translation.

I read Homer in my teens and finding I didn't much like him, thought it might be down to the translator. Having just read this version (it's Robert Fagles') I think I must conclude that Homer and I are not made for each other. There is some good stuff in here, like the argument over Briseis mirroring the taking Helen and the cause of the war. The poem is essentially about the folly of mankind and everything feeds through to that theme (the incompetent prosecution of the war, war itself, the petty squabbles etc) but it's not enough to justify the mindless battle scenes that dominate most of the book and the loss of the thread of the narrative. I did appreciate it more than last time though as since my first reading I've read the Greek tragedies. There's a brief altercation between Agamemnon and the high priest. If you're reading it cold it means nothing but if you've read a bit of Euripides you know that Agamemnon has murdered his own daughter at the instigation of the priest.As to the translation itself I notice that the English line count is much greater than the Greek. I think Fagles may have expanded the action. It's certainly much easier to understand what is physically happening than it was in the other translation. Unfortunately Fagles is a poor poet. What he's written is not poetry at all but prose with line breaks. The sentence structure is amateurish. Perhaps you think me very old fashioned, expecting the translator of a classic work of poetry to be a good poet, but there you are. The introduction on the other hand is superb.Anyway, I hope you enjoy it more than me. As this book has been preserved so carefully down the centuries my opinion would appear to be in the minority.

I'm reading this for English, but it's really good. I've got a background in Greek mythology, though, which helps me understand a lot of the stuff going on, and I've got a really out-there vocabulary. Only read this if you can keep up with Old English and if you've got at least basic knowledge of the Greek myths. Once you get into it, it's really interesting. The worst part of it is the way Homer stops in the middle of a battle and tells somebody's life story, just to kill him in the next stanza. That really aggravates me. Homer's a little long-winded, and I reall don't think this'd ever get published if it wasn't valuable for it's historical importance. It's just not that interesting.

The back cover of lombardo's translation of the Iliad boldly states "this is as good as Homer gets in English". I don't doubt it. The language is clearly more modern than other translations I have sampled and its pace is gripping.

Obviously, the are tons if ink spilled in reviewing the Iliad, so I will not even attempt to add to it in describing Homer's story.

But, I will say it is, at essence a war story and Lombardo has captured it in English incredibly well. The average reader may dread the suggestion of reading Homer as it has a reputation as dense ancient poetry. Not so with Lombardo.

Highly recommended.

Finally reading one of the cornerstones of Western literature! I was surprised to find the story circumscribed from what I had thought; it only covered the last month and a half of the war: anger of Achilles through burial of Hector. Massively boring until Book 9. Descriptions of fighting and killing were more gruesome and graphic than many modern novels. It was difficult to tell who is speaking, since the speaker used very long dialogue and spoke in paragraphs. I know it's a poem and originally meant to be recited, but I wish it were divided like a novel. I discovered some incidents I didn't realized happened since I had read summaries or retellings. At Book 19 began the really familiar incidents--death of Patroclos, entry of Achilleus into the war, his killing of Hector in revenge for the death of Patroclos, Priam's pleading for Hector's body. The death of Patroclos seemed to influence and overshadow subsequent action. I never realized the importance of Aias [Ajax?] and he was the only one not given divine help as the other characters. The chariot race and funeral games section was fantastic. Fascinating how human the gods and goddesses were; how they took sides and tried to manipulate the action, often with shape-shifting. I can see where Virgil chose Aeneas as HIS hero, since Aeneas was one of the few Trojans left alive or not carried off into slavery. I certainly did appreciate the glossary [subject index]. I referred to it often while reading. I read Lattimore's translation, which I didn't like much at first but it grew on me. I'm eager to try Fagles, since I liked his Aeneid.

I prefer the Lattimore version, regarding the Pope as an artifact in its own right. RL's translation flows extremely nicely, and I sort of sink into a light dose, in a smoky hall with a Crater of something soothing in front of me, and let it wash over me. Yes, Homer doesn't tell us how it ends at Troy, but there's always that roman fellow for winding it up, not to mention adding some very unlikely material. If you haven't read this version, you haven't really heard the POETRY of the piece!

The scholarly notes and illustrations add to the luster of this translation. However it is a text to be read and not recited. It lacks the poetic cadence of earlier translations. I was first introduced to Homer in College some fifty years ago and my personal preference is for Homer to have an orality that truly sings beyond any translation.

This epic poem describes the siege of Troy by the Greeks in retaliation for the abduction (actually the desertion) of Helen (the "face that launched a thousand ships"), the wife of King Menelaus. It has a cast of thousands, including Achilles, Hector, Odysseus and Paris, and, along with its second act, The Odyssey, is one of the foundations of Western literature. It is not easy reading--it should be read one book at a time (there are 24 books)--but well worth the effort.

I have always fancied the Iliad slightly over the Odyssey, probably because I see it as a more realistic depiction of the times, quite apart from their immense literary quality and importance. Extract the references to the gods and this comes across as a quite reliable description of a Bronze Age military campaign. It is also more interesting because of the interplay of various personalities, all with their own agendas. And, of course, its a soaring piece of drama, the equal of anything produced in the western world since. This is an excellent translation, preserving Homer's essential devices such as repetition and mnemonics, but very accessible to the non-scholar. Should be required reading for everyone at upper primary or elementary school level. It will enrich their lives forever.

Fagles' editions will always stand as the epitome of Homeric translations. However, this book does a very good job at re-presenting a very old and very well-known story. There are some tangles in the translation, and some weaknesses, but far less than other attempts; and to be honest, a lot of those tangles are inherent to the Homeric text itself. What I really loved was the introductory material. Powell has put together maps, charts, and timelines to help contextualize the text for the uninitiated reader. And the introduction itself was fabulous, focusing on the humanistic value of reading and rereading a text that is already over a thousand years old and known by most everyone already.