What Values Does Homer Attribute To His Society In The Iliad?

Morality and ethics must form a central part of any civilised society, and Homer`s epic is by no means devoid of the hallmarks of such a society. His characters do not act purely in their own interests, which implies morality or ethics are in place in the poem. We can primarily examine this by the speeches of his characters explaining their reasons for acting as they do, and especially (for the purposes of establishing the morality of war in Homer`s poem) the exhortations that captains of both sides deliver on the battlefield. Ultimately, we may hope to extract, by such examination and analysis, a series of rules or principles by which we should live (imagining ourselves as Homeric characters). We may also be able to assess potential sources of this morality and perhaps attempt answer the question of whether there is, as has been suggested, a "heroic code" in the Iliad.

Before we can make any sort of useful comment about these concepts and Homer`s treatment of them, we must actually define what we mean by them. Homer may frequently use abstract concepts such as ????? or ????? without defining them, but we should avoid using nebulous English terms in an effort to avoid precise analysis of this complex area of criticism. What is the difference between "morality", "ethics" and "values"? Roger Crisp concisely describes ethics as "an attempt to answer Socrates` question `how should one live?`" [Roger Crisp, `Homeric Ethics`, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics, id. ed., 2013.] Taking this as a starting point from which to define the other concepts, we might say that morality is the general understanding (or presence thereof) of what is right and wrong about the world (be that subjective or objective), where ethics is the way this understanding is applied to one`s own conduct in life. Values, we might say, are then the rules or principles which are derived from ethics and apply to our behaviour. However, these descri ptions may appear heavily modern, with centuries of ethical philosophy taken as understood behind these definitions. Homer lived in the pre-Socratic era, and probably even around 2 centuries before Thales of Miletus (considered to be the first Greek philosopher by Aristotle). He would certainly not, therefore, have the knowledge of ethical and moral philosophy we have, and may well have not made a mental distinction between morality, ethics and values. However, it is condescending and pointless to assume that Homer would therefore also have simpler views on such matters; the lack of our increased modern ethical and moral vocabulary does not mean that Homer would have any less experience with such matters in practice, nor would he necessarily be unable to make his characters act in ways that are consistent with a specific idea of morality and ethics or certain values. That being said, Homer and his contemporaries may well have viewed morality in a different light to us. In a civilisation heavily influenced in these matters by Christianity - specifically the idea of judgement after death for one`s actions during life - we should not be surprised that our sense of morality is strongly focused on the idea of the self; what matters is what you do and what you think, not what other people think of you. This should not be seen as an attempt to impose objective morality onto modern society, although bodies such as the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Justice have created standardised criminal laws (for the most part); we may see laws and morality as somewhat intertwined, as the people`s morality will influence the laws of the state, which will in turn influence the morality of later generations. In Homer`s time, though there were certainly laws, the lack of the post-Christian moral self-focus may well have meant that a misdeed was only classed as such if others witnessed it and disapproved. If this was the case, then Homer may well have used this as a moral basis for his poem. Equally, Homer may have used a view of morality unlike that with which his audience would be familiar. We should not fall into the intellectually lazy position of assuming that the Iliad reflects the reality which Homer experienced; Homer would no doubt be capable of devising a system ethics (or borrowing one from literary tradition) to use in his poem. Furthermore, we should not forget that the characters are acting in a martial setting. As today some things are considered acceptable for soldiers but not civilians, we must not forget the wartime setting of the heroes` actions; Achilles, Agamemnon, Diomedes, etc. may behave very differently in peacetime, and the notion of a more "unique" or unusual moral system in the poem seems very possible. If this is the case, and we intended to imagine that the heroes would behave differently outside the circumstances of war, it would make sense for us to assume that the guiding principle of the poem`s internal morality is what other people think of you. The central characters (especially the men) spend their time mostly with soldiers, and so are expected to behave like soldiers. In short, for the poem we might say that ethics (and therefore the source of any values) is not just how to live but how others expect you to live. This perhaps leads us to some difficult questions - is it just your immediate companions who expect you to do this? Could different characters therefore have their own moral systems in the same poem? And, perhaps crucially, where does this leave our understanding of a seemingly objectivist concept like the "heroic code"?

To begin with, let us examine the moralities of individual characters, and whether they differ. Homer is adept at making each character`s speech distinctive and, as direct speech is our best method for examining the mind of the characters, it is no great leap of faith to assume that Homer can also conceive of variations on morality for his main characters. Hector is the easiest case and exemplifies the idea of those around you influencing your morality by their reproaches etc.; "???????? ????? ??? ???????./ ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????????" Hector tells his desperate wife Andromache at 6.442-3. Hector cannot be cowardly or refrain from war because the Trojan people would cause him to feel ?????. Another precept of morality we see occur twice in the poem, for different heroes. Glaucus (at 6.208) and Nestor about Achilles (at 11.784) both say that the old father (Hippolochus and Peleus respectively) instructed their sons "???? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????." What is the morality here? That one should always exert oneself to the fullest extent possible, in order to be better than anyone else. For Achilles this is clearly a point of principle; he is already the "best of the Achaeans," so he needs merely not to do anything terrible to retain that status, but Glaucus must work hard and do everything he can to be the best in all areas. Sarpedon, on the other hand, expresses another philosophy again. When storming the Greek wall, he says to Glaucus that there are a great many routes to death "?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???` ????????" and therefore, given that they will die anyway, "?????, ?? ?? ????? ????????, ?? ??? ????," (12.228). It would seem, therefore, that these heroes do not all have the same morality. Although with all of these heroes we see the same basic end result (e.g. that they must fight courageously and not retreat in battle), the heroes do not give the same reasons for this. They are all influenced by their own upbringing and people; Hector would be shamed by the Trojans` reaction, Achilles (perhaps) and Glaucus have been instructed on morality by their fathers, and Sarpedon earlier in his speech asked why he and Glaucus were held in such high regard (implying that they must act in accordance with his speech to justify this).

Who expects the Homeric heroes to be moral? As we have said, their close companions (fellow soldiers or family and friends too for the Trojans) have a great effect on a hero. We may compare, for example, any time a hero is rebuked by a friend, takes the advice and fights more effectively (e.g. 13.468-9 "?? ????, ?? ?` ??? ????? ??? ????????? ?????,/ ?? ?? ???` ???????? ???? ????????? ???????."). So anyone who could talk to a hero and actively reproach them is a person who influences their morality. But are there other such agents? What about the gods? They are referenced by the mortal characters consistently as the upholders of what is right (as Agamemnon says at 4.161 "?? ?? ??? ??? ?????, ??? ?? ?????? ?????????"). However, the gods take no real interest in punishing or even reproving those who do wrong in the events of the poem. If we need there to be some sort of dialogue and criticism (or even punishment) for an agent to affect the morality of a character, then the gods do not seem to fit these criteria. Indeed, the most condemned person in the poem is Achilles, for his mistreatment of Hector`s body. Even then, Achilles is merely told of the gods` displeasure by his mother Thetis and ordered to ransom Hector`s body; there is no suggestion of any punishment for this deed. The only time we actually see punishment by the gods is in the simile at 16.384-92. Homer here tells us of an incident where Zeus sends a flood to punish men for "delivering crooked judgements" (??????? ??????? ????????). This is indeed an instance of the gods punishing wrongdoing, but not for individual men, and we do not know much about the detail of the situation. Furthermore, as this is a simile it does not really exist "within" the world of the poem; the characters will not hear this simile and may not know anything about the world it contains, so it is purely for the audience`s benefit. The gods, therefore, seem not to uphold or promote any sort of morality. It can be argued that the gods do not follow any kind of morality (instead focused on self-interest), and so do not act as role-models for mortals either. Given that the mortal characters do still see the gods as the source of their morality, especially for the definition of "what is right" (?????), we can postulate that while the gods are not concerned with enforcing it, there is some sort of divine moral code (either formalised in some medium or understood in general terms) about how to act. In particular, we should note the example of xenia, translated usually as "guest-friendship". This is the hospitality and respect you show to a guest in your house, or to your host, and the relationship this brings about, which lasts almost indefinitely. However, it is also the unspoken contract that neither host nor guest will do the other harm, especially once they have shared food. This comes up a number of times in the world of the Iliad, notably in three ways; firstly, the war was started by Paris` abuse of xenia when he stole Helen from Menelaus` palace after being his guest there. When Glaucus and Diomedes meet at book 6, further, they initially do not recognise each other and so give genealogies of themselves to the other; it is established that their grandfathers were friends through xenia, so they do not fight but instead exchange gifts and agree to avoid each other in battle. Furthermore, when Priam comes to Achilles` hut in book 24 he keeps asking Achilles to ransom Hector; Achilles replies that Priam should no longer annoy him "?? ??, ?????, ???` ????? ??? ????????? ????/ ??? ?????? ??? ?????, ???? ?` ???????? ???????" (24.569-70). Achilles also references the principle of supplication here; in the same way as xenia must not be polluted with violence, so you must not harm a suppliant. It is somewhat unclear as to which of the 2 situations book 24 is, but the principle seems to hold for both, and Zeus moreover is stated by Achilles to have patronage over both concepts. One aspect of the divine that must be mentioned on the point of morality and punishment is the Furies, or Erinyes. They are the focus of Aechylus` Eumenides, and were perceived in classical times as angry spirits who avenge victims (the murdered especially) by pursuing and punishing those who have committed crimes. They appear 6 times in the poem; three times they are referred to in direct speech explicitly in relation to their role as punitive figures, twice merely as powerful divinities also in direct speech, and only once are they mentioned in the poet`s own voice. This single instance is when the Furies prevent Achilles` immortal horse Xanthus from continuing to speak, and has no connection to morality or what is right or wrong. Once again, we seem to see the characters of the poem ascribing a moral role onto divine figures that they do not, in the reality of the Homeric society, actually fulfil.

Another possible critic and influence on characters is themselves. I have said that Homer may well be using a moral system quite different to our post-Christian self-focussed morality, but a similar (or differently brought about) situation may be possible. Through the poem, we see various words used for concepts we would usually just translate as "mind", or maybe "heart": ?????, ????, ????, ????, and ????. We do see a distinction between these concepts, such as the ???? being the origin of plans and strategy while the ????? is primarily associated with emotions. However, this separation of such concepts seems to present an opportunity for intrapersonal dialogue that seems unusual with our singular concept of the "mind". At book 11.403, Homer tells us that Odysseus "???? ???? ?? ?????????? ?????," and he proceeds to contemplate whether or not he should retreat, before he quickly reminds himself that this is the conduct of cowards and does not. There does thus seem to be dialogue here; do separate parts of the Homeric hero examine each other and promote better ethics? We are told in no uncertain terms that Odysseus is talking to his ????? (????. ?????), so this seems possible. In fact, I believe this is not the case. Homer is merely talking in figurative terms here, as we see there is no actual dialogue between Odysseus and his thumos; Odysseus instead remembers what is cowardly and so does not retreat.

Do we see evidence of a "heroic code"? Achilles acts outside his society`s moral system for almost the entirety of the poem, only being reconciled with this morality in book 24 with Priam, and so we may discount him from our assessment of any traditional understanding of a "heroic code". Finley suggested that the Homeric code was so ubiquitous and unambiguous that it did not need discussing in the poem, hence the absence of any reference to a formalised Code of Heroes or the like. [M. I. Finley, The World of Odysseus, 1978, p.113.] We may apply a literary version of the principle of Ockham`s Razor here; Finley seems to be explaining away the fact that there is no evidence for any sort of code (written or understood). This seems to me an unnecessarily sentimental step to preserve the idea of a heroic code. Perhaps this is an artefact of medieval sensibilities and the idea of a code of chivalry; it is an unnecessary extra entity to include that does not help us understand the actions of the Homeric heroes. The heroes mostly act in a similar way, especially in battle, but we have already seen that these heroes may have very different reasons for doing this from each other. Instead of some sort of universal heroic code, Homer seems to promote a kind of relative morality; the gods have some laws set out which men must obey, but the greater part of a person`s behaviour and their morality is dependent on their upbringing and surroundings. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the Trojan heroes do not defile bodies or fight the gods; their wives, children and families are watching them and their behaviour.

In conclusion, the central two tenets of morality in the Iliad are to follow what is laid out in divine law and what your people consider to be right. In this way we do see some moral relativism in the poem, combined with a base of divine judgement on what men should do. As such, we may finally attempt to answer the question of what values Homer imposes on his society: you must act as you would be expected to. In Homeric society, as in England through much of modern history, the emphasis of morality is to do "the done thing", be it fighting viciously, attending church every Sunday, giving generous sacrifices to the gods or inviting your neighbours round for dinner parties. In the world of the Iliad, we must simply do what is expected of us by our village, city or comrades.