Force and Words
by Dr. Mark StoneDr. Mark Stone has stated of the Iliad:
I. Force Versus Words
As a philosopher, I have been struck by a theme that seems to arise in the first book and later about the relationship between force and words. (See 8 in the list of topics) I had read Simone Weil's book--The Iliad, the poem of Force--a few years ago. She argues that the central theme of the epic is Force, which she defines as "that x that turns anybody who is subjected to it intot a thing. Exercised to the limit, it turns man into a thing in the most literal sense: it makes a corpse out of him."
To me a thing is the opposite of what it is to be human. The philosopher Immanuel Kant captures this when he talks about a person as a being who must be respected as an end and not merely a means to some other end. We use things for our ends or purposes--hammers to nail. We are beings who have purposes. So if we use other persons for our purposes, say to get ahead, with no regard for the fact that they like us have their own purposes, we use them as things.
With this contrast in mind what I saw in the opening of the Iliad was a sort of movement back and forth or dialectic between two ways of resolving conflict. For example, in Achilles' conflict with Agamemnon we have a response that comes naturally to a warrior of his stature which the narrator poses as a question: "... should he draw the sharp sword that hung by his thigh, scatter the ranks, and gut Agamemnon ...?"(I, 199) In contrast to this I saw Nestor acting as a sort of proto-philosopher trying to argue for a compromise between the men that involved mutual respect for the other's position, reminding them that "taking advice is a good thing."(I, 289)
Along these lines I proposed a more complex theme about the opposing relationship betwen force and words in the Iliad. It seemed to me that in this work one could see how Force abandons Words and how Words abandon Force. With a little more elaboration I would say that we can see in the Iliad how words, language, conversation, negotiation, and argument serve to humanize--to treat people as human beings as ends with their own purposes and not merely as means. We can also see clearly how threats, force, violence, and silence dehumanize.
To me Nestor demonstrates the first part of this theme in his attempts to negotiate a truce between Achilles and Agamemnon. Although it's jumping ahead a bit, the passage in which Ajax kills Simoeisius in Book 4, lines 512 and after, demonstrates the second part. In this incredibly moving passage Homer uses a simile to compare this killing to the way a wainwright cuts a tree to make the parts of a chariot.
II. Did Hector have a choice?
I like the question about whether Hector had a choice about returning to fight. I think to a certain extent he like any soldier does not have a choice about fighting. This to me is what builds the emotional tension I feel in his scene with Andromache--if only he could stay. To me this tension between war and the scenes of domestic order is the social side of the more abstract tension between force and reason. Maybe war is necessary, but the narrator seems to constantly remind us that we shouldn't suppose that we can have both war and domestic order. The domestic order in which husbands and wives gather with their children and enjoy the sort of pleasurable intimacy we see between Hector and Andromache--without the imminent threat of disruption.